Notices by I moved to Mastodon.social (teri_kanefield@law-and-politics.online), page 2

I am trying to find a few 2018 pieces written by @virginiaheffernan all about Ivanka and the women in Trump world.

They were brilliant. I'll try to find them.

The clerk is smart. Serious. No-nonsense. She is paying close attention. She doesn't defer to the men. Her attitude is probably "I am as smart as the judge." She watches the courtroom with sharp eyes and takes it all in.

They assume, therefore, that she hates them.

That is my latest theory.

3/

Women in Trump World are supposed to look like plastic mannequins. It's okay for them to be smart and professional as long as they bat their eyelashes an in subtle ways defer to men.

Ivanka is the picture of this. She is allowed some independence as long as she remembers that Daddy is the boss, and as long as she looks the way a woman is supposed to look.

What they are reading as "eye rolls" and "scowls" may simply be expressions tolerated in men but not women.

2/

Someone asked me what I think is going on with Trump's lawyers attacking the clerk.

Yesterday I said this:

"It's hard to tell what is going on with that. My best guess is that Trump's lawyers are fatigued, know they are losing, and are getting weird and paranoid."

Judge Engoron, who sees it all up close, said there is misogyny.

I just saw a picture of the clerk and I have revised my opinion.

The judge may be right . . .

1/

Deep thought for the day: Why do they call the little candy bars "fun size."

Isn't it more fun to get a big candy bar?

I have a new blog post ready:

https://terikanefield.com/can-democracy-work-in-america-part-1-there-are-no-yankees-here/ 

We all know that the current proliferation of misinformation is endangering democracy.

I plan to show that democracy-endangering conspiracy theories have also taken root among MSNBC / CNN / and left-leaning social media audiences.

At the end, I will answer the question: How can we solve the problem?

If you've been a regular reader, you will find some of the ideas in this introduction familiar, but . . .

1/

All right, all of you criminal law and First Amendment nerds. . .

The special counsel has filed its opposition to the order to stay the gag order.

If you're saying, "What the heck? I'm lost!" don't worry. I wrote up this nifty explainer to get you all caught up.

So put on your nerd glasses and have a look. A bit later I'll do a reading of the special counsel's filing.

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

There is some confusion about Meadows "flipping."

https://abcnews.go.com/US/chief-staff-mark-meadows-granted-immunity-tells-special/story?id=104231281

Immunity is something else: This means essentially that he was forced to testify.

It works like this: If the DOJ gives use immunity, nothing he says can be used against him, so it's no longer possible to invoke the 5th Amendment.

(It's late so I'm not sure I explained it well.)

See:
https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/amendment-5/immunity#:~:text=“Transactional”%20immunity%20means%20that%20once,from%20or%20obtained%20because%20of

https://www.justice.gov/archives/jm/criminal-resource-manual-718-derivative-use-immunity

. . . but if they already had the info, they can use it, but they will have to show that they already had it.

To prevent this from being a problem they likely question him on a narrow topic that has nothing to do with his own criminal liability.

It is bad for Trump because obviously, they are forcing him to say something he doesn't want to say.

It is good for the DOJ because they get the info they want.

It is unlikely to be good for Meadows.

A lot of people are assuming that "immunity" means Meadows is off the hook.

I also see some reputable legal commentators buying into the "Meadows flipped" narrative.

Immunity doesn't mean he can't be prosecuted. It means that anything he says after he was immunized can't be used against him.

It keeps people from hiding information by invoking the 5th.

If the prosecution learns something new from his testimony that implicates HIM, they can't use it.

Continued . . .

To clarify:

Meadows did not agree to a deal.

His testimony is coerced.

He had no choice.

If the DOJ gives him use immunity he has to testify truthfully because what he says cannot be used against him, so he cannot stand on the fifth.

However, anything he says to his compelled testimony cannot be used against him.

This doesn't mean he cannot be prosecuted. It means that anything he says to questions after being immunized cannot be used against him.

This means he hasn't made any deals.

Read all about it here:

https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/amendment-5/immunity#:~:text=“Transactional”%20immunity%20means%20that%20once,from%20or%20obtained%20because%20of

and here:

https://www.justice.gov/archives/jm/criminal-resource-manual-718-derivative-use-immunity

@tiamat271

Correct. Most defendants want #1 but they rarely get it.

That said we do not know if Meadows will be prosecuted in D.C.

@tiamat271 The thing to remember is that the defendant is not in the driver's seat.

The prosecution has all the power. It's the individual up against the government.

Defendants generally have no weight to throw around.

. . . see the links here: https://law-and-politics.online/@Teri_Kanefield/110090429352455691

See? It's complicated? Who has time for that in a doomscrolling world?

Now, if you'll excuse me, I have to go back to my book.

@jhavok @Extra_Special_Carbon @courtemancha @invalidname

I won't name names, I have some of the biggest names in TV lawyering on CNN or MSNBC muted because they are wrong as often as they are right.

When they are wrong, it is not because they are deliberately inventing stories, but because they're lazy and careless and pop off the tops of their heads or reflect back what their audience wants to hear.

This is different from how authoritarian regimes use lies.

@jhavok @Extra_Special_Carbon @courtemancha @invalidname

I am using "Disinformation" to be a deliberate lie. I am using "Misinformation" to be something that is wrong but wasn't put forward deliberately as a lie.

The problem with distinctions of "left" and "right" gets confusing so I will say that I don't see Democratic leaders deliberately lying, while do I see Republican leaders deliberately lying.

I have many many left wing commentators on mute because they are so often wrong . . .

Here is the DOJ's response to Trump's claims that the case should be dismissed because he had absolute immunity as president:
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.258149/gov.uscourts.dcd.258149.109.0_1.pdf

There is a table of contents and it is written for public consumption.

Trump has been trying to claim immunity since he was president and so far, the courts have never given it to him

He claimed immunity when Congress wanted his tax returns. SCOTUS said no in 2021.

He claimed immunity with the Mar-a-Lago search in 2022. SCOTUS said no.

Etc.

If you've been reading my stuff for a while, you know what I'm thinking about:

Our criminal justice system and the American judicial system have grown extremely complex.

People see something incomprehensible: (Why aren't all lawbreakers in jail? Why isn't Trump in jail?) Then then assign blame. (“It is all Merrick Garland’s fault!”)

Then they see people they admire who are part of their community saying "it's Garland's fault!"

(If you're thinking 'it IS all Garland's fault . . .

6/

@peachfront @Oggie

a conspiracy that is real is a fact.

Conspriacy theory is an odd phrase but means "not true"

Well goodness. Sidney Powell is pleading guilty https://www.cnn.com/2023/10/19/politics/sidney-powell-fulton-county-georgia-2020-election-subversion/index.html#:~:text=Former%20Donald%20Trump%20attorney%20Sidney,sentence%20of%20six%20years%20probation.