(Thread)

Dear @senatorromney

You say you “reached a different conclusion” than Justin Amash and the Mueller Report doesn’t establish that Trump obstructed justice.
newsweek.com/mitt-romney-ca…

Perhaps we should look at the report together to determine if you are correct, or . . .
1/ . . if you you telling a politically expedient lie.

As you know, we begin with the elements of obstruction of justice, which are:

💠an obstructive act
💠a nexus between the obstructive act and an official proceeding
💠a corrupt intent.
2/ How about if we focus just on the facts given in vol. II, p. 113-120.

To summarize:

💠According to McGahn’s memory, in June of 2017, Trump ordered him to fire Mueller;
💠McGahn refused;
💠January 2018, the media reported the story;
3/

💠Trump, through his personal lawyer and two aides, “sought to have McGahn deny” the story and create a false record;
💠McGahn refused because the story was true and he wouldn’t lie.

Trump, in media interviews, denied that he had tried to fire Mueller.
4/ Mueller looked at all the evidence and concluded that “the weight of the evidence” is against Trump.

[Straight talk: Mueller concluded Trump was lying.]

Evidence includes multiple witnesses (who testified under oath) and contemporaneous notes and records.
5/ There you have it: The facts meet Element 1.

Element 2 is a nexus.

To establish a nexus, the prosecution must show that Trump’s actions would tend to hinder, delay, or prevent communication of information to investigators.
6/ Here's the evidence Mueller examined to determine Element 2:

💠Trump knew Special Counsel was investigating obstruction-related events, and that the investigation wasn’t complete;
💠McGahn changing his story would undercut McGahn’s “credibility as a potential” witness;
7/

💠Trump specifically wanted McGahn to produce a written document: Trump wasn’t simply engaging in a media strategy or he would have given an interview denying the story.
💠Instead he specifically asked McGahn to write a letter “for our records” 10 days after the stories ran.
8/ Thus Mueller concludes the answer to Element 2 is yes.

Here's the evidence Mueller used to analyze Element 3:

💠Trump had “laid the groundwork” for “pressing McGahn to alter his story” by telling others that it might be necessary to fire McGahn if he didn’t deny the story.
9/

💠Trump’s statements to witnesses reflect his understanding that the events of the past summer (when he ordered McGahn to fire Mueller) would be part of an obstruction of justice inquiry.
10/ Mueller thus concluded that Trump “acted for the purpose of influencing McGahn’s account in order to deflect or prevent further scrutiny” of his “conduct toward the investigation.”

Look at that, @SenatorRomney
Mueller has evidence to establish all three elements.
11/ I’ve already done the analysis here:
On May 6th hundreds of former prosecutors signed a letter saying they would have charged a defendant with obstruction on these facts.
latimes.com/nation/la-na-p…
12/ It would be very helpful, @SenatorRomney, if you showed your own analysis and explained which of the three elements haven't been met, and why.

Specifically, you should tell us which part of Mueller's analysis on pages 113-120 you find fault with.
13/ Otherwise, we really have no choice but to conclude that you are telling a politically expedient lie.

This particularly lie isn’t just any lie. It's a lie that endangers the Constitution and the republic because you—an elected senator—are shielding a lawbreaking president.
14/ The Report explains that obstruction doesn’t have to succeed for it to be obstruction. (v.II 11-12) This makes sense, right? If it succeeds, there won’t be any charges. Kind of like: Treason never prospers, and what is the reason? If it prospers, none dare call it treason.
15/ It seems you thought you could avoid a constitutional crisis by exonerating the president, as per this tweet:

In fact, you are creating a constitutional crisis by undermining the document itself.
16/ Just yesterday, I listed 7 reasons the GOP is corruptly shielding a lawbreaking president.

Which is your reason, @SenatorRomney ?
17/ Perhaps you are afraid of angering Trump’s base, knowing that without Trump's ardent supporters, it will be impossible to put together a national coalition should you run for president.

Perhaps you are afraid of Trump.

Or, perhaps, you are afraid of the truth.

end/
All of my threads are blog posts. You can view this one here: terikanefield-blog.com/dear-senator-r…

(You can also check out my thread archives. There's a search function and categories)

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
 

Keep Current with Teri Kanefield

Teri Kanefield Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @Teri_Kanefield

Feb 21
Putin knows how to wield disinformation and he knows that the United States is divided: A large portion of the population, including the most influential voices from a major political party, want the United States to emulate his Russia.

1/
Some background:

After Russia enacted anti-homosexual legislation, Pat Buchanan said Putin was “entering a claim that Moscow is the Godly city of today" because he was stamping out western evils like easy divorce and homosexuality.
buchanan.org/blog/whose-sid…

2/
British right-winger Katie Hopkins, in an article in which she was interviewed with her friend Ann Coulter, said “Putin rocks.”

Katie Hopkins then went on to praise Russia as being “untouched by the myth of multiculturalism and deranged diversity."

rt.com/uk/429777-kati…

3/
Read 4 tweets
Feb 18
Trump lost in court THREE MORE TIMES today.

Trump tried to get all three of these cases⤵️ dismissed and lost. I analyzed one of the cases last April, Blassingame, here: (Transcript on my blog.)

He tends not to do well in court, where facts matter.

1/
The defendants made the following arguments (screenshot #1)

Trump also claims, among other things, that he has absolute immunity. (#2)

It turns out that the absolute immunity question isn't as easy as you might think (but Trump still lost).

2/
If you want to get caught up on one of the cases, my analysis from last April is here:terikanefield.com/blassingame-v-…

And here:

You can read the court's decision here: storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.usco…

3/
Read 8 tweets
Feb 16
Um . . . this isn't the defense Trump thinks it is.

Trump published a letter he received from Mazars dated (it looks like) 2014. He then summarized the letter.

#1: What Mazars said
#2: What Trump says Mazars said

Me = 🤦‍♀️

Does he think nobody can or will actually read it?
Mazars said, "Trump is responsible for preparing the financial statement."

Also Mazars does not "undertake to obtain or provide any assurance that there are no material modifications that should be made . . . "
Trump posts the letter and says Mazars "strongly states that all work was performed in accordance with professional standards and that there were "no material discrepancies in the financial statements."

There is no "I don't know how to read" defense.
Read 7 tweets
Feb 13
For this week’s blog post, I edited and combined a few of my recent threads.

I started with a reading of the newly unredacted sections of the Mueller report, then talked about some of the responses on Twitter . . .

terikanefield.com/is-social-medi…
. . . and concluded with thoughts about how social media brings out authoritarian instincts in large swaths of people who ordinarily would not be given to authoritarian impulses.



It's too easy for truth to lose, and when truth loses, democracy loses.
Right. And not all "manipulators" are bad actors, but all people need to learn to evaluate sources.

Reflectively saying, "Professor X should know" is not how to do it. It takes more work. Falling in line is always easier than doing the work.

Read 4 tweets
Feb 12
I'm tired of the word "accountable." It's a weasel word. Don't say "accountable." Say what you mean.

Does "accountable" mean
🔹Lose elections?
🔹Go to prison?
🔹Lose a lawsuit?
🔹Be hated?

It would be nice if all the good people were rewarded and the bad people punished.
So you want to start indicting people and gather the evidence after they're indicted?

Or not worry about evidence?

There are rules of evidence, which means that the stuff you've read in newspapers and Tweets probably isn't admissible in court . . .
Indicting people and having juries return "not guilty" verdicts because there isn't evidence to prove each element of a crime beyond a reasonable doubt may not accomplish what people think it will accomplish.
Read 10 tweets
Feb 12
One reason I think social media is turning everyone into authoritarians: people don't read or think.

They see a headline and have a strong emotional reaction, which they Tweet and which then gets repeated by others, who are also not thinking . . .

1/
Political psychologists like @karen_stenner describe the authoritarian personality.

Those with an authoritarian disposition are averse to complexity. They reject nuance.

They prefer sameness and uniformity and have “cognitive limitations.”

(link in the next Tweet)

2/
See for example, "Authoritarianism is not a momentary madness,” which originally appeared in this book, an dwhich Stenner has now made available free on her website, here: ……e-4700-aaa9-743a55a9437a.filesusr.com/ugd/02ff25_370…

Timothy Snyder also talks about the danger of what he calls Internet Memes.

3/
Read 7 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!


This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Don't want to be a Premium member but still want to support us?

Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal

Or Donate anonymously using crypto!

Ethereum

0xfe58350B80634f60Fa6Dc149a72b4DFbc17D341E copy

Bitcoin

3ATGMxNzCUFzxpMCHL5sWSt4DVtS8UqXpi copy

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!

:(