(I posted portions of this on Tuesday, August 9)
In 2021 and 2022, I worried that the “Indict Trump Now” people had an unrealistic sense of what a criminal trial is actually like. For example, this person told me:
So about a year ago, I wrote this:
Here is the thing about litigation: Both sides often end up feeling like they lost because, generally, neither side gets everything it wants.
Now, here we are. Three criminal indictments have been filed against Trump and another is expected. We are in the pre-trial phase moving toward what is very likely the most important criminal trial in our nation’s history. Merrick Garland, through 2021 and 2022, continually said “We have to get this right.” That goes for us, too. We have to get this right. We have to help our friends, family, and neighbors understand what is happening.
Part of the problem is that our criminal justice system has grown mind-bogglingly complex
I, therefore, updated my Criminal Law FAQ page. Among other things, I explain why our criminal justice system is complex. It’s a long blog post. So grab your favorite warm beverage, find a comfy chair, and settle in. If you read it recently, no need to read it again. You might want to read it again if it’s been a while, particularly if you feel inclined to say any of the following:
- Trump is getting special treatment!
- He never faces any real consequences!
- The fact that everything takes so long shows that the system is hopelessly broken!
You can find it here. I’ll put the link at the end of this piece as well.
Part of the problem is that we are currently in an information disruption
A quick review of reflectors, entertainers, poppers, and internet triggers.
In the old days, people got their news from a newspaper or half-hour evening news program. We are now in a 24-7 media cycle. Cable shows have hours of time to fill. Outlets compete for clicks. As a result, droplets of facts get lost in a cascade of speculation and opinion.
Reflectors and Entertainers
Peter Arnella, a professor of criminal law at UCLA, who commented on the O.J. Simpson trials for ABC, was one of the first “TV Lawyers.” He quit the “profession” of TV Lawyering when he realized that:
The above is from a 1998 piece entitled The Perils of Legal Punditry which appeared in the University of Chicago Legal Forum.
To quote Timothy Snyder, when news becomes entertainment, what matters is who puts on the best show. The truth gets lost.
Poppers
Poppers are well-respected legal authorities who have a great deal of knowledge and expertise, who nonetheless pop off the tops of their heads about something they haven’t researched or is outside of their area of expertise.
The problem is that it doesn’t matter what they say. Anything that pops out of their mouths is taken as some kind of gospel, which feeds their egos and encourages them to continue popping. As my contracts professor once said about judges: “When your ass is kissed that often, you run the danger of thinking it is holy.”
Rage Peddlers
In a 60 Minutes interview, Facebook whistleblower Francis Haugen explained that “angry, polarizing, divisive content” gets wider distribution and more engagement. It’s fun to be popular and as Fox learned a long time ago, the way to hook an audience is to stoke rage and fear.
Internet Triggers
In this video, Snyder talks about “Internet triggers,” which he defines as something a person saw on the Internet, felt triggered by, and is now repeating:
He talked about how dangerous these Internet Triggers are for democracy because they prevent us from thinking complex thoughts. Snyder finds this terrifying because democracy depends on us having “some sense of time beyond our immediate outrage.”
Think about that phrase: A sense of time beyond our immediate outrage.
I have often called these rage-inducing simplifications because they generally take a complex situation and reduce it down to something simple and rage-inducing.
Another indictment is expected this week
Anna Bower and law professor Anthony Michael Kreis in Atlanta have been closely following the grand jury proceedings there. They are predicting that we will see indictments for election interference in Georgia this week. Specifically, they predict Tuesday.
Trump’s rantings on social media about a witch hunt in Georgia for a perfect phone call would seem to confirm this.
Can anyone think of a similar instance of a single person indicted across multiple jurisdictions (New York, GA, South Florida, DC)?
Or is Trump the Winner of Indictments?
Find me in the fediverse
I will try to do a mid-week blog post on the indictment, but I will be on vacation with family. I’m sure they won’t mind if I sneak away to read the indictment. I may not get my Over the Cliff Notes onto my blog as quickly as usual, but I will have social media explainer sooner. You can find it here. (If you don’t know what the fediverse is, see this post.)
Now it’s time for Fun with Criminal Procedure 🤓
First a Note: Most communication with the court (known as “briefing”) looks like this:
(4) Either the court holds a hearing or simply issues an order.
The Mar-a-Lago case (stolen documents case) The United States v. Trump and Nauta
Does Nauta’s lawyer have a conflict of interest? (Remember: Nauta is Trump’s co-conspirator.)
A conflict of interest refers to the ethical problems that may arise between parties with a preexisting relationship. In law, a conflict of interest arises between an attorney and a client if the interests of the attorney, a different client, or a third-party conflict with the interests of the present client.
This is a problem because if a lawyer cross-examines a former or current client, one of these might happen:
-
- the lawyer might improperly disclose client confidences (thereby harming his former client), or
- the lawyer treats the witness gently, either to protect the former client’s confidences or to advance the lawyer’s personal interest.
The DOJ requested what is called a “Garcia Hearing,” which is a hearing to determine whether a defendant might be harmed by a lawyer’s potential conflict of interest. The DOJ also wanted to file documents under seal to show why they believed Woodward had a conflict of interest.
Aileen Cannon, the judge, responded by
- denying the DOJ’s request to file documents under seal to explain the conflict of interest
- ordering Nauta to respond to the DOJ’s request for a Garcia hearing by August 17.
- ordering Nauta to address “the legal propriety of using an out-of-district grand jury proceeding to continue to investigate and or to seek post-indictment hearings on matters pertinent to the instant indicted matter in this district.”
- Then she wants the DOJ to reply to Nauta’s filing by August 23.
(The DOJ previously said that grand juries in both D.C. and Florida are continuing to investigate this case.)
What is going on? It seems like she is encouraging Nauta to challenge something about the out-of-state jury but it isn’t clear. Basically, we have to wait and see where this goes. (For a more complete guide about what we are waiting to see, this Lawfare piece is good.)
The J6 Attempt to Overturn the Election Case
Here is the chronology of what happened this past week:
Friday, August 4 (evening): The government filed a motion for a protective order. The motion is here. The proposed order is here.
The proposed protective order basically says that Trump and his lawyers cannot disseminate sensitive material provided by the government to the public. Protective orders in criminal cases are routine. Basically sensitive material and grand jury material cannot be disseminated to the public.
This is routine in criminal law cases and the DOJ was planning to file one.
Over the weekend, Trump posted a series of unhinged posts on social media, in particular:
Monday, August 7: Team Trump filed the required Response to the DOJ’s proposed protective order. It’s here.
No surprise, Trump wants a less restrictive order. Specifically, he wanted things that were not marked “sensitive” excluded from the order.
Monday, August 7: The DOJ filed its reply.
Friday, August 11: The hearing was held.
At first, seemed like the judge was offering Trump a win by rejecting the DOJ’s blanket protective order. She insisted on going line-by-line through Trump’s objections. In the end, she basically said, “Only sensitive information will be excluded” (seemed like a win for Trump) but then she ordered the DOJ to determine what is sensitive (in the end, a win for the DOJ. Also more work for the DOJ.)
The DOJ asked for the trial to begin on January 2, 2024. You can expect Team Trump to object to a trial that quickly. The judge hasn’t yet set a trial date.
The judge refused to accept Trump’s claim that the case is the government’s attempt to interfere with the election. She gave Trump’s lawyers a few warnings:
“I caution you and your client to take special care in your public statements about this case. I will take whatever measures are necessary to safeguard the integrity of these proceedings.”
The weekend social media meltdown
(I posted this section as a midweek blog post. You may have already read it.)
Last weekend, while we were at the stage of the DOJ and Trump submitting briefing on the extent of the protective order, I was bombarded with frantic people who were in a rage over Trump’s weekend posts.
These people were demanding that Trump be thrown in jail for his posts on the grounds that his posts violated his terms of release.
I looked, and sure enough, the usual rage merchants, reflectors, and poppers were encouraging this. One law professor with a following of a quarter of a million followers reposted a screenshot of one of one of Trump’s weekend social media posts and prefaced it with “Lock Him Up.”
Curious about what Trump had done to deserve immediate incarceration, I looked at his weekend posts. I saw an unhinged nut, but nothing justifying being thrown into jail. So I read his terms of release to see if I was missing something.
The Terms of Trump’s Release
At Trump’s arraignment, the prosecution and defense agreed to these conditions of release:
Trump also signed a form entitled “You are advised of the following penalties and sanctions.”
The warning says that if he commits a felony, the penalty will be consecutive (meaning that it will add extra time). It then warns him of the kinds of things that are crimes. (These are standard instructions because a lot of defendants don’t know this stuff.) He was told what will happen if he fails to appear.
The judge also emphasized the warnings by saying this:
“I want to remind you it is a crime to intimidate a witness or retaliate against anyone for providing information about your case to the prosecution, or otherwise obstruct justice.”
Okay, so I went to look at Trump’s media postings.
Trump’s Social Media Postings
Trump posted this:
IF YOU COME AFTER ME I WILL COME AFTER YOU.
Within hours, the DOJ submitted the request for a protective order. They were planning to do this anyway. It is routine. This was not in response to Trump’s postings. Here is how the DOJ worked Trump’s social media post into their request for a protective order (emphasis added):
See what the DOJ did? On the surface, they were saying, “Look at Trump’s post. This is why it’s super important that we have an order protecting sensitive grand jury materials.”
But really they were saying this: “This is what we are dealing with, Your Honor. An unhinged nut.” But they did it in the cool, collected voice of the adult in the room dealing with a manbaby.
(Reportedly Team Trump was furious that the DOJ immediately ran to show this post to the judge.)
Team Trump then released this:
Is he lying? Well, of course. But see how he gave himself deniability? See how he muddied the waters?
Then, to my surprise, social media erupted with cries of LOCK HIM UP. When I asked on what grounds Trump should be locked up, I got responses like this:
He is violating the terms of his release
Thinking I missed something, I went back to review: He was told not to violate laws, he must appear in court as required, he must sign an appearance bond, and he must not communicate the facts of the case with anyone Trump knows to be a witness, except through counsel or in the presence of counsel.
On social media, I posted: “I don’t see how he violated these terms.” The response I got:
He committed a crime! Witness intimidation!
So I did the analysis. Here is how criminal law works. To figure out if a person committed a crime, you look up the statute and break it into elements. Each crime has several elements, at the very least, each has a mens rea and actus rea requirement. Ordinarily, you need evidence beyond a reasonable doubt, but because Trump is on pre-trial release, thejudge can revoke his release on a showing of probable cause that he committed a new crime. (18 USC 3148.) (h/t BAM on Mastodon)
First, a few observations about the post “IF YOU COME AFTER ME, I AM COMING AFTER YOU.”
- Trump does not yet have a witness list. Of course, we can all guess who the witnesses are, but nobody knows for sure. This raises the question: Can he threaten a witness before he has been given the witness list?
- Notice that this post doesn’t name anyone.
- Here is one way to read his post: he is promising reciprocity: What someone is doing to him, he will do back, which precludes violence unless he is responding to violence. If anything, he is saying, “When I am president, I will prosecute you!” Okay. That’s hot air.
- Trump is an accomplished mob boss who knows how to say things while giving himself deniability. He is really good at that.
Now, for the legal analysis.
Did the post “If You Come After Me, I am Coming After You” constitute witness intimidation?
This crime has four elements. (Remember, we need evidence for each).
Trump does not name a person. It seems to me a charge of witness intimidation fails right here.
But the social media post came immediately after he said harsh things about real people.
Now we’re reaching. See why? Also, consider his retraction the next day. Trump says he was talking about his political opponents. You might know he wasn’t. I might know he wasn’t. But he didn’t name anyone and has a strong defense.
Before you feel too frustrated that this isn’t working out how you want, recall that the DOJ, after a careful investigation, charged Trump with 4 felonies related to overthrowing the election. The charges are solid and the evidence is solid and Trump has no defenses.
Now for the next element. This requires that Trump knowingly tried to:
- “induce the testimony” of the person
- or “coerce or induce” the person to withhold testimony
- or “destroy, mutilate or conceal an object with intent to impair the object’s integrity or availability for use in the proceeding,
- or cause or induce the person to evade legal process summoning the person to appear,
- or cause or induce (name of person) to be absent from an official proceeding to which the person was summoned.
See how specific the requirements are? General language won’t meet the requirement of this statute.
The last two elements require that a specific proceeding is pending and that the proceeding is federal.
My analysis, after I apply the facts to the law, is that this post falls short of witness intimidation.
But Teri! What about the Truth Social Post in which he attacked Pence?
Do you mean his one?
Yes, he attacked Pence, but this post does not meet the elements for witness intimidation. Scroll back and do the analysis under the second element for yourself.
Moreover, Trump wrote this immediately after Pence (who is also running for president against Trump) went on TV and attacked him. Chronology:
On August 2, Mike Pence began giving TV interviews reacting to the indictment and saying in these interviews that Trump’s lawyers told him to overturn the election.
On August 5, Trump posted his “Liddle Mike” post attacking Pence.
So we have a double problem. (1) these posts do not meet the elements of witness intimidation and (2) if Pence is attacking Trump and trying to win a political nomination against him, can you really tell Trump he can’t respond?
Interesting aside: If you were to do that, the person who would benefit is Pence. Imagine the courts muzzling your political opponent so that you can say anything you want and the person cannot respond.
This, by the way, is how Special Counsel referred to Trump’s “Liddle’ Mike” post in their latest filing:
In other words, the DOJ is using these unhinged posts to get a more stringent protective order, which is what they want.
What would be an appropriate judicial reaction?
On Tuesday (when I initially posted this) I suggested that this would be the appropriate judicial reaction:
The judge can issue another warning because he is pushing it. At some point, she may order him to explain himself. If he crosses the line into actual witness intimidation after that, she can revoke his release.
I expect Trump to move as close to the line as he can without going over. He wants to keep taunting people. It keeps his enemies riled and his allies stoked.
Here is what I think Trump and his lawyer Lauro are doing and why: Trump wants these criminal proceedings to be about Free Speech (he really, really, does) but . . .
The Charges Against Trump Do Not Have a First Amendment Defense
The DOJ, to make this clear to everyone, put this early in the indictment:
Of the four charges against Trump, none of them have a First Amendment defense.
Nonetheless, over the weekend, Trump’s lawyer, John Lauro, appeared on each of the five weekly political talkfests. He continually hammered that the indictment was trampling Trump’s First Amendment Rights.
Trump and his lawyers (the smarter ones like John Lauro) want to be able to raise a First Amendment defense because this will play well to the MAGA / libertarian crowd. Even libertarians who don’t like Trump will come to his defense if they think he is being prosecuted for his speech.
Here is an example from Justin Amash:
I may not like Trump, but I love our Constitution, so I feel compelled to speak out.
Amash then goes on to say that criminalizing Trump for his speech will take down American democracy.
Trump is smart enough to figure out how to manipulate people (he manipulates everyone). So he wants to create a First Amendment fight so that he can get more people on his side.
He does not want the discussion to be about whether he tried to overturn an election because he has no defenses. He wants the fight to be about something where he can come up with a defense.
It’s been a few years, so I think you’ve all forgotten how Trump hijacks the conversation and controls the media narrative.
He is going to push the limits of what he can say on social media so that he will have the fight he wants: over free speech.
Trump is putting his political need above his legal needs because he thinks he will win this in the end if he is able to consolidate the support of 46% of the country. This is his goal.
NOTE: The analysis I did about whether Trump committed a crime took some time. It is easy to do a knee-jerk reaction and shout HE BROKE THE LAW or HE VIOLATED THE TERMS OF HIS RELEASE. The legal analysis takes time and requires focused thinking.
TV lawyers can offer knee-jerk responses. Lawyers generating a following on social media can offer knee-jerk responses.
The DOJ and judge cannot do that. They have to look closely at the law and the facts and make a balanced reasoned decision.
People. I cannot spend all my time talking you all off the ledge. Stay off the ledges.
Stop following the “experts” and personalities who are keeping you enraged. We have a long year ahead of us. More indictments are coming. Don’t give Trump the fight he wants.
I know it’s addicting. I know they are entertaining. I know they are clever with their one-liners. (That is why they are asked to be on TV.) Their job is to entertain and keep you engaged.
(My updated Criminal Law FAQ page is here.)
Thanks, the cold facts of the legal issues did not help my indigestion over this approach to litigation by the obviously corrupt former guy. I do not believe in lock him up as a solution until conviction.
Thank you so much for all your work. You certainly have nailed what is happening perfectly. I’ve stopped following the rage-inducers and know that if I want level-headed information, I look for your comments first. Thanks again.
There are lots of legal experts out there who are balanced and measured and who think first. I read the good ones and then occasionally glance to see what the others are saying.
Well, I would follow Legal Eagle. And, he likes “My Cousin Vinny.”
Wow…absolutely BRILLIANT and full of common sense. Thank you.
Thanks, Teri – we need to spread this explainer far and wide to hopefully stop the “Lock him up chants.”
I spent a fair amount of time over the past few days linking some of your past articles covering much of the same territory along with the indictment itself trying to get friends to understand that the DOJ knows what it is doing, and has an extremely strong case that has nothing to do with the First Amendment despite Trump’s desperate attempts to make it so.
I agree with you that once there is a protective order in place and team Trump has the discovery materials, his posts will change a little to stay just on the right side of the line.
His antics are clearly unhinged, but they are also controlled. He can behave when he chooses to, otherwise he wouldn’t be so meek every single time he appears in court where he has no power. Yes, he’s absolutely a wannabe dictator with evil intent, but he also knows what he is doing and how to insulate himself. In that it’s all the more impressive how strong the cases are against him and how quickly they have come given the complexity.
Now about Judge Cannon’s latest ruling not discussed above, she’s clearly showing her bias again, but is her ruling legally supportable?
Also, is there any scenario where the DOJ could get her recused before she irreparably harms the documents case which is also quite strong?
I have been traveling so I have not been able to get to this question. Soon.
He may not have violated the terms of his release, but it is stochastic terrorism. Someone *will* get hurt, because of his words.
Okay, he has been doing that for years and I cannot find a crime that fits these facts.
The solution is what the DOJ did: Put together a solid case against him for which he has no defenses.
“Can he threaten a witness if he doesn’t know who the witnesses are?”
I appreciate the breakdown but the complicated nuances are suggested by this question alone.
Consider some mobster who is known to have threatened witnesses in past trials. He is indicted again. He threatens that any witness (and he knows there are witnesses, but not the exact ones) against him will ‘get theirs.’
The witnesses can very well be intimidated. I’m not saying anything you say is wrong. But, it is not “social media hysteria” that people are confused. They can think about it some and still be confused.
===
I think the concerns for prudence here are fine though they are somewhat separate from exactly what he is guilty of.
Also, what influences people is that defendants are regularly detained for periods of time without being prosecuted. The need long term to prosecute BARD doesn’t stop this. The detentions might be unjust or bad policy. But, that is part of the reality of the reactions.
I am talking about the large, influential accounts that responded to Trump’s social media post by saying, “He should be locked up immediately.”
I didn’t see too much out there in the way of legal analysis of whether he actually committed a crime.
Just thanks again for your tireless work plus keeping folks from jumping over the ledge. Lawyers need to know the law but great ones know human nature as well.
Rock on, Teri. This is logical and well thought out. I hope you enjoy your travel.
I really enjoy reading your posts. I have not forgotten how Trump operates. And the details of applied law are fascinating. Our world is complex. I am always leery of oversimplifications. This is a wonderful opportunity for us laypeople to learn more about the judicial process. Life long learning can only enrich us
Thank you for getting this out so quickly!
If I were someone who does embroidery, I would embroider this quote from your post for you: “People. I cannot spend all my time talking you all of the ledge… Stay off the ledges.”
Thank-you so much for explaining things so well.
> Stay off the ledges.
Oh, okay.
Cool, clear, crisp, and calming analysis. You, young lady, are a rockstar.
I think the appropriate reaction is to do nothing. He is trying to turn this into a First Amendment issue.
Pence has adopted that narrative, other Republicans are too. Here is what he said:
————
“I have no plans to testify, but, look, we’ll always comply with the law. But … I don’t know what the path of this indictment will be,” he told CNN’s Dana Bash in an interview that aired Sunday on “State of the Union.”
“The president’s entitled to a presumption of innocence. He’s entitled to make his defense in court,” he added. “***(But actually there are profound issues around this, pertaining to the First Amendment, freedom of speech and the rest.*** I’m confident he and his lawyer will litigate all those things.”
——-+
Besides, stochastic terrorism is easily made non-specific, and would sidetrack the narrative. And it is protected speech under the First Amendment by every example we can see.
And he’ll leak, and he’ll threaten. Jack Smith is wise to press the importance but wiser not to dwell on it. Trump wants the distraction.
That said, should he bait Judge Chutkin enough, then a brief stint in jail for violating a gag order will shut him up.
I agree that he didn’t break any laws with his social-media post. But I’m curious about the extent of that “must not violate federal or state laws’ condition. Does that mean just criminal laws, or does it include civil laws? For example, if Trump defames Jean Carroll some more, has he violated the terms of his release by committing a tort? Or fails to pay a contractor? Torts and contract breaches are against the law.
yes to all of this–thank you for the research and work. you did to write it for us
This is more of a political question/comment than legal, but is it even possible Trump can get support from 46% of Americans? His public tweets alone tell the story. I thought people were smarter than this.
He, the GOP and his lawyers speak with a bullhorn and get alot of attention attacking the DOJ and Biden Admin. The Democrats OTOH are rather mum.
The trial can’t come soon enough so that the public can decide based on evidence and not Trump’s PR team.
Thanks, Teri-
Once again you take a convoluted, complex situation and break it down so that I can understand the legal ins and outs. Very helpful analysis.
I don’t think so but I believe he thinks that is his hope. In fact it is his only hope, so that is what he is trying to do.
I honestly do not have to “live on the edge” because I follow your excellent blog. Your extreme patience, common sense and ability to teach are just what this country needs.
Thank You
Enough *have* gotten hurt because of stochastic terrorism. Whether perpetrated by him, Tucker, or Milo.
It looks like it is well-protected under the First Amendment.
Until someone important gets badly hurt. Then it’ll go the way of mass shootings. Thoughts and prayers, followed by indifference, followed by red states enacting laws to *strengthen* stochastic terrorism efforts.
Thank you, Teri. As always, you are a calm voice of reason. I’m sorry that some people continue to frustrate you, but I am grateful that you take the time to address peoples’ concerns. I think you alluded to it, but it really seems to me that one of the main reasons behind Mr. Trump’s limit pushing social media tirades is that he’s not done with the insurrection; he is ultimately counting on violence. If you ever want to discuss that, I’m all ears… even if you tell me I’m wrong.
Another incredibly helpful reference. Continued thanks for these.
That said, I find myself with minor disagreements on three of your points:
1. Your quote: “Then, to my surprise, social media erupted with cries of LOCK HIM UP.” You *cannot* possibly still get surprised by kneejerk reactions out there. 😉
2. Your comment: “Trump taught everyone to worship and crave a strongman.” I believe nearly every single person alive inherently loves the idea of someone powerful fighting on their behalf for what they believe in no matter where they are on the political spectrum. People don’t need to be taught that. The problem here is that one of Trump’s core skills is to tap into that inherent desire and willfully ignore reason, laws, ethics and morality in his promises to do what his followers want (as long as it’s in his best interests of course). Not as punchy, but it’s more that Trump has taught everyone that it’s okay to ignore laws and due process because he “NeVEr gEtS pUNisHeD” for it.
3. On a related note, your next comments of “The nature of social media is turning us all into authoritarians” and “The complexity of our legal system is turning people into authoritarians”; I see it as the other way around. Social media is successful in part because people crave simplicity and the nature of social media gives them the illusion of simplicity as well as the illusion that they can be an “expert” on any topic in that medium. I mean, look at me right now, writing about all of this as if I have a degree in psychology. It’s incredibly easy to ignore nuance and is in fact instinctual in the majority of people on any given topic (see also “armchair quarterback”). As long as there is social media and complex subjects, we will unfortunately, depressingly and frustratingly *always* find most people expressing themselves with shoot-from-the-hip, authoritarian-like comments that took them mere seconds to generate before they moved on to the next post.
Thanks again, Ms. Kanefield, for all that you do. Keep fighting the good fight! It’s still worth it.
I have several people whose posts/work I make a point of looking at every day. Was generally sharing that with some folks over lunch on Sunday and followed up with an email with the
Subject: Teri Kanefield – My #1 Fave
Here’s how I began the email:
“Here’s some info about my favorite person to read when it comes to legal issues and politics. Her blog is TeriKanefield.com . It’s mostly weekly and occasionally more frequently. Most recently you’ll find articles about this month’s Trump indictment and arraignment. Teri is a former appellate defense attorney – meaning she defended folks who had a right to appeal and couldn’t afford a lawyer. She was paid by the state of CA to work on these appeals. In addition, she has authored a number of fiction and nonfiction books.
Here are two of my favorite articles from Teri which are related to each other.
1. From 2022, Will Democracy Survive in America? (I don’t know. Do Enough People Like Democracy?)
https://terikanefield.com/will-democracy-survive-i-dont-know-do-enough-people-like-democracy/
2. From 2023, Can Democracy Survive in America?
https://terikanefield.com/can-democracy-survive-in-america/”
I went on to recommend and link to your FAQs.
Deeply grateful to have discovered you on Twitter a few years back. You are also the reason I set up a Mastodon account. So appreciate what your write and how you write. Wishing you safe travels and satisfaction in meeting your real deadlines.
Cheers!
Such a good explanation! Thank you. I also keep worrying about and pointing out here and there, the underlying issue that these legal rules people are so frustrated by — and want to see thrown out so they can get the result they want — are the rules that protect regular people. They don’t always work perfectly but they’re so important to our system, these protections. Really upsets me that people who don’t understand/have any expertise are so anxious to get what they want that they don’t see the bigger picture at all.
Also, on the snarky side, annoys me that the same folks who belittle MAGAs for failure to heed expert advice, run around spouting legal opinions without ever having taken so much as a class or cracked a law book…
Thank you once again, Teri. You have talked me off the ledge many times. Since I no longer look at the “site formerly known as Twitter” I don’t spend as much time on the ledge. I will be more careful, though, to mute those accounts who tend to be rage-inducers on Mastodon.
Other than reading Teri’s analyses because: a) she explains things with great clarity and b) she’s right on the money, I have no interest in “news” about Trump because so little of it is news. Let me elucidate:
What Trump says or writes is not newsworthy. All he does is lie, bluster, threaten, and whine. That’s not news. Those are spoiled-toddler noises.
What his lawyers spout is also not newsworthy unless, perhaps, they are spouting inside a courtroom in front of a judge. Then what they say may count. Outside the court they are spewing propaganda.
When Trump is indicted (again) that is news and I read each indictment and also Teri’s and other explanations of what the indictments contains. What he’s accused of doing, what evidence is released, and what the consequences are if he’s found guilty are all newsworthy.
Info about fellow indictees (is that a word?) and also un-indicted co-conspirators is news to the extent that they are part of the evidence/background and may eventually testify against Trump.
So the ratio of noise to news is, for me, about 100 to 1–a lot of clamor and shouting, but relatively little of interest. That may change once trials get underway, but for now–if you’ll take advice from an old guy–play with your dogs and cats, tend the garden, enjoy the children or grandchildren, go for walks, and let Trump squeak and squawk to his heart’s delight.
Or to quote Shakespeare (no longer allowed in Florida!):
“Tomorrow, and tomorrow, and tomorrow,
Creeps in this petty pace from day to day,
To the last syllable of recorded time;
And all our yesterdays have lighted fools
The way to dusty death. Out, out, brief candle!
Life’s but a walking shadow, a poor player,
That struts and frets his hour upon the stage,
And then is heard no more. It is a tale
Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury,
Signifying nothing.”
If Trump had ever studied Macbeth, perhaps he wouldn’t be so indicted.
I’ve been reading you long enough that you didn’t have to talk me down off the ledge, but it is great to have this so clearly explained so I can talk other people off the ledge (and also at least attempt to answer Trump supporters who say he’s being politically targeted). I lived in New York city from 1989 to 2005 and I’ve been thinking that folks like me have a different perspective – Trump’s been a well known grifter his whole life, so none of his actions are actually that surprising, he hasn’t changed a bit. What’s horrifying is how the audience beyond New York City responds to him…..it never occured to me to take him seriously before 2016. But it lends some perspective to me so that I get actually more frustrated at his enablers and his suckers than anything else. In this case, I want to say to everyone – Play this scenario out – Trump blows hard on Truth Social, Jack Smith files an aggressive witness tampering complaint like you want him to (actual legal justification for doing that aside), maybe Trump in this fantasy gets hauled to court and ordered remanded into custody. How can you not see that this becomes Trump’s ultimate wish fulfilment – the whole court becomes a circus and he’s the ringmaster. All eyes are on him as he submits to handcuffs, with his chins lifted defiantly. Later, he walks out of the jail, a hero, with people shouting his name, and maybe some brawls between his supporters and protesters happening in the background. Nothing productive gets accomplished, because he didn’t technically break the law, so he gets a win here, and he gets every bit of drama and adulation he lives for. Everyone on social media can go on forever about how unjust and dangerous it is that he’s walking loose and mouthing off on social media, but in my opinion, Jack Smith has it right – I’ve never seen Trump so stymied. Just keep putting the information forward to the court in a dry and and slightly belittling manner and let the court do its job. Don’t engage him, let him shout into the wind.
It’s hard, but I so agree with your advice. I try not to check on the news all the time, and I try hard to really be present in my life with things that are so much more important to me than this guy. It is key to keeping my sanity and reminding me what I’ll be fighting for if this guy succeeds in his plans.
One other observation I have from social media – there are so many people who seemed to say that the two choices for reaction here are reacting with anger and outrage at Trump’s statements, or “civility” and just accepting that Trump can do whatever he wants without consequence.
Just because I’m not yelling on social media or spending energy being angry that the wheels of justice are moving so slowly, doesn’t mean that I’m not angry, that I’m not aware of the danger Trump represents, that I’m being “civil”. I’m channeling my anger into voter action (including in the upcoming non-sexy but oh so important super local elections), and believe me, if the worst happens and this guy gets elected, I will be right there on the front line organizing underground railroads and doing whatever I can to protect and fight. I give that same benefit of the doubt to thoughtful public figures, like Merrick Garland and others. I think the expression is “keep your powder dry”……
It is fascinating to watch this from the other side of the world, outside of the media frenzy.
From here, it seems pretty straight forward: the Defendant is facing four counts where the indictment outlines very strong evidence. Even so, some of our supposedly competent news organisations were sucked in by the putative “all Trump needs to do is show he believed what he said” arguments, and ran with that summary when announcing the indictment on the news.
I can imagine, having spent some time working in the US, that inside the media bubble it is difficult for some / most / many to see through the latest breathless reporting or opinion back to the facts of the matter which is that the counts of the indictment haven’t yet changed, are only likely to change for the worse for the Defendant, and patience, scrupulous attention to following due process and attention to detail and the rules of the courts are the best way to ensure that the outcome is the one that is one that will stand up to appellate scrutiny.
Thank you
Recovering ledgie here. Thanks for taking the time, even while travelling, to put this together. Certainly every one of your readers benefits from your informed and thoughtful remarks, which demonstrate (not just recommend) a measured approach.
I still visit the passion pits but know much better how to parse their reporting. And I need much less xanax.
Good Lord. Amazing analysis! Thank you so much for that. Subscribing as soon as I post this comment.
The quick answer seems to be: we know (or are quite sure) what he means, but it can’t be proven beyond a reasonable doubt in court. He has spent a lifetime doing this dance.
I think the technical answer is that “His posts do not meet the legal definition of witness tampering.”
I am not even sure he intended to intimidate Pence as a witness. Why wasn’t he just doing what he always does? He has been attacking people that way since he entered politics. The only thing that changed is that now he is a defendant. His behavior hasn’t changed.
With witness intimidation, you can’t say, “Every day of his life Trump has done X. Now that he is a defendant he intends something different when he does X.”
Remember, I’m trained as a defense lawyer. My training is to look for holes in an accusation or charge. An accusation of witness indimidation on these posts falls apart for far more than proving intent.
Maybe his intent was to bluster and impress his followers. Maybe his intent was to show his followers that he is still fighting.
I often question how much “things change” in various contexts, including those who dream about “returning” to a good time that never existed.
I’m unsure how much social media truly changes things. We had the sentiments and reactions she fears before online was a thing.
I also am wary of “The nature of social media is turning us all into authoritarians” when the bottom line is that people naturally are concerned about his remarks (which she herself does not deny are very troubling & very well have an incitement quality).
They think once he was arrested and given a warning by the judge the comments crossed a line. Many people don’t provide legal analysis here. They cite visceral reactions like “he is a criminal” etc.
I think her analysis is very helpful to spell out the legal rules but I think many people deep down realize the core of what she is saying on the legal side of it is true.
No matter what happens in a trial (and hopefully it’ll be televised) his cult will believe he was railroaded.
Next, we need to focus on those folks who have said or hinted that they don’t really like Trump, but can’t vote for a Democrat (the situation here in Alabama where D = baby killer, socialist, communist, spender of other people’s money and all around evil-doer). We need to let them know it’s not down to Trump right now – there are primaries first and lots of choices there! Maybe someone less distasteful than Trump. See if they actually “really don’t care for Trump” or if they’re just pretending they don’t.
Sometimes I do find myself meandering toward the ledge and am grateful for this reminder to just stay away. I’m afraid of heights anyway, so I just need to think about that.
But I’m curious about statements (1A) vis a vis actual threats. Are there actual specific guidelines as to what constitutes threats? “you come after me and I’ll come after you” is pretty vague and can be spun like Trumpland did. But something like “Beautiful ___ you got there; shame if anything happened to her/him/it.” Not a direct explicit threat per se (even though we all know what it means), but is this how these mobsters avoid getting in trouble for “threats”?
Teri, in this vein, do you have a list of recommended social media follows?
Off the top of my head: If you are on Twitter, I can recommend Elizabeth de la Vega, and a lawyer who calls herself Nastyoldwomyn CCJ (she has to be anonymous, but I know her personally.) On Mastodon, a guy who calls himself Bam.
These are not well known people. As far as well known media personalities, Joyce Vance is one of the best. I susbscribe to her newsletter. If you follow her for the law, she is spot on. I don’t always agree with her conclusions, but she is careful. Steve Vladek is also really good but lately he hasn’t been talking about the stuff in the news. I think Barb McQuaid is also good, but I don’t follow her as closely.
There are a number of others who I read, but before recommending I’d want to look mroe closely. I know what to filter out.
Teri. Some of us are nowhere near the ledges because we follow YOU and your intensely informative analysis of what’s actually happening. Out of all the many legal experts that are out there, the few that I’ve found, Timothy Snyder, Ruth Ben-Giat, are extremely informative.
I think Jack Smiths approach is quite brilliant. There’s no way for Trump to defend his 1st Amendment rights when they’re not being called into question. His lawyers are going to sound silly trying. Their rounds of weekend news shows were quite entertaining, to say the least.
It’s the whole fascist MO. You can’t listen to what they say but you better watch what they do.
Thanks again Teri for your brilliance.
R
it seems to me that the law isn’t that blind, I understand that he didn’t put any names, but how is it that it seems the law ignores the fact that while it doesn’t specify a person, the comment clearly is aimed at all witnesses. That would be intimidation in any arena that I am aware of.
This is, absolutely his only hope. It’s on his mind and inspired that weird post about DC. He would like to see all of American society fall to such apocalyptic levels of destructiveness. Recompense for a guilty verdict.
I so appreciate your analysis, although I didn’t especially need to be pulled back from the ledge. Nonetheless it certainly is reassuring to read your analysis. Good thinking takes time and effort, no doubt About it.
I’m a lot more interested in Trump’s strategy to use this trial, and the Court of Public Opinion as a means to get himself re-elected, which is his real end game. It’s my belief that Trump really has no defense, nor does he care. There is nothing blocking a convicted felon from becoming President of the United States, and that’s where he’s headed, with this and the other trials to come. This trial is really just a stop on the way to his ultimate goal. I know what you’re going to say: the legal system isn’t a remedy for political problems.
But I also know that the judge and prosecutors have a significant amount of influence on Howard hard or easy it will be for Trump to reach his goal. That’s what makes these proceedings so interesting for this layman.
As a side note, I’m very encouraged by the various state-level cases picking up steam against the fake electors, I’ve read that, in aggregate some 80 people were involved. It’s my naive opinion that these cases could have some very positive effects in swing states where they’ll be litigated, because the cases are simple to understand by the public, and the persons involved are all local and well known. And they’re going on in states that are critical for Biden to pick up. Of course many things can go wrong, this is just my take.
Thanks again for all your work!
Teri,
I have followed you quite a long time now, and I have to say this latest column strikes me as one of your finest ever, so thank you.
I’m not a lawyer; even so, you have always managed to spark my fascination and passion for understanding the law and how it functions. (Sometimes I think I was a lawyer in a past life; either that, or I will be in a future one.) Maybe in that regard, I feel a bit like a law student looking forward to class.
Anyway, I just want to say how much I have appreciated your work over the years. You consistently manage to weave together complex legal explanations, careful reasoning, and solid political perspective within a short format … tackling it all with alacrity and no shortage of good humor. And in a way for me, it’s the humor that’s a key ingredient —it’s like a Cracker Jack box surprise.
I suppose we all need it. After all, it’s been quite the ride.
Well said.
Ledges, sir. Remember the ledges.
Kirk – I’m in Pennsylvania, and I was fascinated to read that the PA people who were recruited to be fake electors took the time to look into the legal ramifications, and at least one prominent party member opted out. The ones who did participate made sure language was put in that made it clear that they were alternate electors, only valid if a court found that there was election fraud (I’m a layman, I may have described that with some inaccuracy). I find myself taking some kind of weird pride about that (also proud that Mastriano went down hard).
“What is going on? It seems like (1) she will rule on the conflict of interest when the briefing is complete, (2) she doesn’t want to see anything filed under seal, and (3) she is encouraging Nauta to challenge the out-of-state jury. Basically, we have to wait and see where this goes.”
So you are saying the net right now is that Cannon’s order, even the part telling Nauta to challenge the fact that there are multiple grand juries investigating actions surrounding the documents theft, has to play out before there will be enough data to know whether that direction was legally supportable. Frustrating, but OK. I guess given the schedule, we should know more by the end of the month though it all seems pretty weird.
I can’t figure out exactly what she is up to. It’s definitely weird. I tried to game out possibilities and none of them makes sense to me, so I’ll just wait too see what the challenges look like and what she does.
Adding: I mean, I have some ideas, but they are guesses.
Hi Teri,
A friend of mine is now reading your blog and one of your books. She use to listen to pundits. This is a victory!
One thing though, you often recommend, “getting your favorite hot beverage” when taking a deep dive into law geekiness. Truth is, for me, it’s a cold beverage that gets me through. I hope you are not offended.
Particularly in this heat, right?
I’m right there with you, JP. Well said!
Teri, I am particularly interested in your explanation of “witness intimidation”. The problem with it is that to be truly effective intimidation, he really doesn’t need to NAME ANYONE! Each person, and every person, who has testified before any authority, against him, will assume that he means them and thus would feel the blade of intimidation! Is the “Mouth of Maralago” that smart or is his legal representation so clever in their advice? Either way he thwarts the LAW and has it “his” way.
My suggestion is that Judge Chutkan should have made his attorneys responsible for their clients abuse. By warning that she would move the trial up, she gave the defense the excuse that they could, in no way, examine all of the Discovery material in any shorter time and thus could not provide effective defense for the “Mouth”.
The Mouth of MaraLago is toying with Judge Chutkan like a person using a laser pointer to play with a cat! We’ll see!!!
Jack Smith is a master at demonstrating the “Gray Rock” technique – suggested response to a narcissist’s bottomless thirst for attention and drama. Boring them frustrates their insatiable need to engage and manipulate.
Thank you, Teri! As always your post is incredibly helpful & easy to understand. Thank you for teaching me to stay away from ledges.
Now if I could just learn to be profoundly disappointed in people like Justin Amash, who I think of as being smart enough to know better & principled enough to not pander to that wing of the GOP. I mean, I expect it from the ‘commentators’ like Poso, Lou Dobbs, Kurt Schlicter… I wanted to believe Amash was better than that.
I just returned from a trip to Australia, where the news is still really news and there is no Fox news agitating people. It was so refreshing and the difference it makes in day to day discourse is night and day. The damage done by the right wing outrage machine (and its corresponding left wing mirror) is just immeasurable.
I completely agree with your assessment, I read Teri weekly because I can understand what she is describing so clearly – she is great at breaking things down in a way I can grasp them, but I also love her sense of humor. And the admonition to “stay off the ledges” — great advice for not exacerbating my blood pressure in times like these!
People. I cannot spend all my time talking you all off the ledge. Stay off the ledges.
Stop Following the “experts” and personalities who are keeping you enraged. We have a long year ahead of us. More indictments are coming. Don’t give Trump the fight he wants.
LOL
You are funny Teri.
I don’t have cable or even TV so it’s easy for me not to see most of it, although I do see the rage seeders on Twitter.
I appreciate your legal mind and explanations so much. You are one anchor in today’s cacophony.
I’m curious what you think of the article on the 14th Amendment.
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4532751&utm_source=substack&utm_medium=email
Tim Snyder did a blog on it yesterday.
https://snyder.substack.com/p/we-can-have-the-constitution?utm_source=substack&utm_medium=email
Buckle up ~ it’s going to be a long ride and I’m glad you are with us. Hi to JJ 🙂
To Terri,
I agree whole heartily with JP. Thanks to both of you.
Sheila
I have done the same with a number of my family members. I believe the way I put it to them was, “I don’t normally read commentator posts from people reacting to the Trump situation since most of them tend to be biased in one way or another. But if you are looking for a someone who can give you a clear, concise, BALANCED analysis of the things that are going on right now, I high recommend Teri Kanefield. She is a lawyer by both training and professional experience and she is excellent at clarifying the complex legal issues going on so they are much more understandable to people without that background in the law.” Teri has talked me off of that “ledge” more than once and for that I’ve very grateful.
I love the way you said this JP. Especially the Cracker Jack box surprise. Teri is such a gift to all of us. Can you imagine surviving the last several years without her insights and wit? I’ve sent countless friends her “Things To Do” list too, as we’ve all felt so helpless. No better way to tackle fear than to channel it into constructive action, even if you’re like me and don’t know much about politics. But I can certainly write a postcard, so at least it’s something!
It is extraordinarily disrespectful for you to create an analogy in which Judge Chutkan is a cat, easily distracted with a laser pointer. She strikes me as quite capable of maintaining a focused mind on the facts of the case and arriving and balanced, well-reasoned decisions.
Well put!
You answered your own question: Trump doesn’t specify anyone, and it doesn’t specify what it would do. You’re falling, as Terri said, for rage-baiting. Get off the ledge.
“Part of the problem is that our criminal justice system has grown mind-bogglingly complex”
I don’t think it’s necessary to be a defense lawyer to reach that conclusion, but it helps give it gravitas.
Anyway, in general, fairness and simplicity conflict with each other and I do prefer fairness and I wish it were simpler.
> Snyder says that the meaning is “obvious” but the law really doesn’t work like that.
The meaning is obvious. The rule of law doesn’t obey obviousness. It obeys strict rules instead. That benefit outweighs this negative. In 1868 “everybody knew” who participated in the rebellion and none of them said, “I didn’t do it.” Circumstances are different now, so we need some implementing legislation. I’ll go further: we need a new amendment.
This amendment should say that anyone who commits a felony that interferes with the proper functioning of government is banned from holding any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State.
We have enough other well qualified people that we don’t need the services of people unwilling to live by our laws.
No matter how much Trump squeals, the fact remains that we beat him in 2020, by nearly 7 million votes. We can do it again. Focus on what you did to make that happen in 2020. Now make a plan to do more. If you made 100 phone calls, plan to make 200. Knocked 50 doors? Plan to knock 100.
These are small steps we can all take to make sure he doesn’t win.
FOCUS.
Just curious Teri – if you saw the irony of including a clip – visible on YT which is posted online (The Internet) – of a guy standing in front of a wall of books, emphasizing how important it is to read books vs being “on” The Internet.
There was no mention of the possibility of even reading his own works on The Internet – which in fact, was triggering on its own the way he kept repeating “The Internet.”
By Triggering I am referring to the huge number of people who still to this day seem both absolutely convinced everyone is at the total mercy of algorithms and cannot seek out quality reading material on their own that will *not* trigger them even tho items like this statement are found – wait for it – also on The Internet.
Just his use of the term “The Internet” makes me laugh even as it’s also aggravating that a man of this scholarly knowledge & education is clearly unaware of just how useful online media can be and the only thing to fear online is fear itself.
hmm…where have I heard that phrase before?? I’m not old enough to have heard the actual recording…maybe, just maybe, someone repeated it somewhere.
Maybe on The Internet?
Bottom line: Monitor your own browsing. Be aware of your own choices. Take time to understand issues, not just who is saying what and why. Be your own best critic. If you take a stance on a topic, find the supporting facts both for and against and in the middle. Go looking for outside – not generally referenced as well as referenced – sources.
As for reading books: goodness – a book is a LOT to read & ALL books are meant to be sold therefore you need to select what books you DO read as carefully as you select the material online to read. While Snyder makes some valid points about how easy it is sometimes to understand if someone is coming up with valid points on their own vs being someone just repeating the latest talking points that they read online somewhere, he also comes across as a stuffy old curmudgeon-type who has yet to learn how to manage his own web-browsing therefore he believes others haven’t either and goodness how is it that they (especially his students) could not be triggered when he so obviously is?
****
Great blog post as usual – Have a happy vacation – where is JJ??? He’s going too, right?
This is just a Q so I’m writing it separately from the other comment –
I’ve been reading a lot of negative commentary about Judge Cannon, especially recently. Could you please give us some commentary on how well (or not) she’s doing? Does she seem to be appeasing the Defense?
Maybe outline what it would take for the DOJ to ask for her to recuse since so many comments seem focused on how this should be done? or even explain how and when and if a judge can be forced off a case? Is there even a point of no-return where she must stay on a case?
Must Trump be formally charged / convicted with insurrection? As I read the story behind this article, a New Mexico court found that the subject of this suit, by dint of participating in the J6 riot was participating in an insurrection, and therefore disqualified by Article 14 Secrion 3. I think the lawyers’ roadmap is to use the state courts and the plain reading of Article 14 regardless of other charges and convictions. Would this stand up on appeal? You got me.
“When your ass is kissed that often, you run the danger of thinking it is holy.” Great quote but it feels like it applies to much larger set of people than just judges.
Thanks for another great post!!
This is a valuable Public Service Announcement that (excluding the few opinion adjectives, like, “nuts”–b/c they will sour biased readers from reading/listening to & being educated by it) I wish could be delivered, as they used to be in the “old days.” i very much appreciate all the time & energy you used to research, compose, and provide this. Thank you. As, usual, I will share it, and suggest your blog.
I grew up in PA (Erie), am a PSU alumnus, and held my breath / was relieved when Mastriano was rejected. On the left coast now, I’m nonetheless thrilled about what I’m seeing from Shapiro. Glad PA’s electors had the sense to insert that critical clause.
Do you listen to AM Radio? The show that is broadcast in my area is crazy. Try listening to The Clay Travis and Buck Sexton show, also have podcasts.
https://www.clayandbuck.com/
This is where many people in my area get their info, not the internet. The Sean Hannity show follows this one.
Your advice to stay off the ledge is a neat encapsulation of the core problem people have with Trump. His whole schtick is manipulating emotions. He massages the egos of his fan base and enrages opponents. People do not think clearly, if at all, when they are drenched in emotional response, and that’s Trump’s edge. I agree he wants a trial in the court of public opinion, because he has a good enough shot of “winning” that because his strengths work there, unlike an actual courtroom. If people enjoy being enraged, they need to start thinking about the 2024 election, because the Republican Party is going to pull out all the stops to ratfuck that election, because that is the only way Trump wins, which is his only shot at making these trials and their verdicts go away. Which reminds me, can you take a moment to talk about the appeals process for the charges (we know of so far)? Assuming any conviction, Trump must appeal. What does that look like, where does it go, etc? Thanks for all your work.
I was peering over the ledge last fall when I joined Mastadon (& a few others) and within days found & followed you on there. I was already a fan from the bird site but only occasional reads, but my 1st FAQ’s made me a believer. Once I started following you on Mastadon I felt the sanity & that is probably what helped me stay there & learn to navigate. Thank you for the sanity!
Australia kicked Murdoch off their airwaves years ago because he is a disruptor and liar. The UK tried, but their ‘laws’ prevented them. Regan embraced Murdoch in the US by fast racking his citizenship to 1 year. The Republicans have embraced him ever since.
My reading of Justin Amash’s Tweet isn’t quite so generous as yours Teri. Looks like he is playing fast and loose with the facts. Unfortunately he got a lot of “likes” for suggesting the DOJ is trying to restrict Trump’s free speech rights.
Hi,
Please don’t be mad at me for pointing this out, but it does stick in my craw a bit. The word none is the same a zero and so it is singular. That means that if you say, “Of the four charges against Trump, none of them have a First Amendment defense.” then you’ve put the word have in where it should have been has. The verb goes with “none”, not with “of them”. The same is true in many examples I see where someone may use the word group or team. The “of whatever”, though maybe plural, doesn’t govern the verb. If you have a group of lawyers or a gaggle of nut-jobs, the verb should be singular.
The gaggle of nut-jobs pressures Mike Pence. not pressure.
But that stuff aside, I recommend all of your writings to people who need to be calmed over these proceedings. Your tone and demeanor make it possible to breathe again? Thanks,
Charles Jackson, Hopkinton, MA
Alright, I am taking two steps back from the ledge. Thank you Terri!
You’d better watch out. I will put you in charge of proofreading all of my blog posts. See if you like that
Thumbs up to this!
I can see that, so far, Trump’s posts do not meet the legal definition of witness tampering. And the prosecution has not put forth any motions to that effect yet. I expect Chutkan will wait to wade into this until such time as the prosecution does file any motions on this issue.
In the meantime, in addition to Chutkan quotes you highlighted in your piece, I am also heartened by these words from her:
“Mr. Trump, like every American, has a First Amendment right to free speech, but that right is not absolute.”
“The fact that he’s running a political campaign currently has to yield to the orderly administration of justice, and if that means he has to limit what he says about witnesses in this case, that’s how it has to be.”
Trump can’t defend his 1st Amendment rights when he’s not being accused of any. As always, it’s not what they (fascists) say, it’s what they do.
Thanks for more analysis, Teri
R
Is there any chance that Congress critters and/or Senators (Ted Cruz, I’m looking at you) who on January 6th objected to various states’ electors will be indicted in the fake electors scheme? They were integral to the whole scheme since without them making objections, there would not even have been opportunity for Pence to delay the confirmation of Biden’s election.
If the only thing they did was vote with a corrupt intent, it isn’t enough. Otherwise you’d have the executive branch scrutinizing the legislative branch for corrupt intent. There would have to be more.
Hi Teri,
This was yet another great comment from you. So helpfully instructive regarding the actual tests that apply before determining what is and is not a violation of law.
So with some hesitancy I venture that Trump’s telling Geoff Duncan not to testify to the Fulton County Grand Jury, would seem to this non lawyer, to run afoul of Section (B) (i) of Georgia’s law regarding influencing witnesses. Since Trump’s comment appeared to be a specific directive to a specific person regarding a specific proceeding. https://law.justia.com/codes/georgia/2010/title-16/chapter-10/article-5/16-10-93/
I suspect your reply to me would be something like — “You may have a point but I would need to talk to someone who practices law in Georgia.” Since you once responded that way to me regarding a comment I made on DA Bragg’s case in Manhattan.
Again many thanks for your good work.
I just need to do the analysis 🙂 A quiet half hour with a legal database and I could give you the answer. I may not have time now. Traveling and expecting a GA indictment.
Here’s the thing: We will find out soon enough of Willis pursues it, right?
Thanks again for your voice of reason, I am slowly but surely learning to think before I react and walk away from the ledge. I just finished your book on Thurgood Marshall and hope to read the rest of your The Making of America series. Building a library for my grandchildren and learning so much that was glossed over in my education!
How is it possible that none of the Trump children or their partners, mainly Jr, Jared, Ivanka or Kimberly have been charged with anything?
That was me. Just the fact that’s he’s been indicted at all has indeed given me great schadenfreude! 😉
Because the investigators did not find enough evidence to support a conviction.