Shall we talk about what it means that Mueller concluded there was insufficient evidence to bring some of these charges?

I assume people have questions.

Insufficient evidence doesn't mean "no evidence" and it doesn't mean "they didn't do anything wrong."
Let's take J.D. Gordan and the changing of the GOP Party platform.

Mueller concluded that there wasn't enough evidence to prove he was acting at the direction of Russia.

Maybe he wasn't.

Maybe he did it becuase Trump's pals prefer Putin-style autocracy over democracy.
They love Russia and Putin, who Richard Spenser has called the "sole white power in the world." See:
terikanefield.com/no-the-entire-…

I don't know whether Mueller's assessment was correct because I haven't seen all the evidence . . .
I looked at some comments to the reporting and felt a bit sick.

I wonder if social media is turning everyone into authoritarians who crave a police state where any evidence at all of a crime means heavy boots at the door and off the person goes to prison.

Back to the topic. . .
Okay, maybe one more digression😆

I have spent my career frustrated by the decisions prosecutors have made, but our rule of law system means prosecutors weigh evidence and decide.

Rule of law doesn't mean everyone who commits a crime goes to jail. Quite the opposite, actually.
NOW back to the topic.

Thus passage about Jr. is interesting.

Apparently there was insufficient evidence to charge a felony, but evidence sufficient for a misdemeanor, which Mueller declined to charge a misdemeanor under the principles that guide federal prosecutors.
What did Jr. do that was a misdemeanor?

🔹A password was sent to Jr. by wikileaks.
🔹Jr. told others that it worked when he tried it.
🔹Therefore, he accessed a computer without authorization.

So what's the principle that guided Mueller?
It's in Justice Manual § 9-27.230.
Prosecutors are supposed to "consider, among other things, the nature and seriousness of the offense, the person’s culpability in connection with the offense, and the probable sentence to be imposed if the prosecution is successful."

Here's Mueller's conclusion:
In other words, it seems that Mueller concluded that given those facts, it's not the kind of thing that would ordinarily be prosecuted, so he didn't.

Also, really, it's small peanuts.
But I like to answer questions, so, sigh. I guess I just skim looking for the thoughtful questions.


Remember that Mueller indicted 34 people and 3 companies including lots of Trump's inner circle.

You see, federal prosecutors don't like to lose. . .
. . . if they bring cases that they lose (or that makes them look petty and unserious) they lose credibility and waste resources.
.
Thanks ⤵️Perhaps that's because I have gotten good at ignoring the mean, the ugly, and the cynical.

Speaking of cynicism, I think people like me who spent their careers defending indigents understand best that we want it hard to throw people in jail.
To be clear, Mueller made his decision not to prosecute the misdemeanor based on these facts:

🔹Jr. did not initiate the plan to access the computer; the password was sent to him.

🔹Wikileaks sent him the password, and also made it available to the public . . .
🔹Jr.'s act of entering the site* caused no damage and he gained no benefit, so it's hard to say he did it in furtherance of a larger crime.

*a site, not a computer, sorry for the error in the previous tweet.

Under the guidelines, what matters is. . .
. . . "the nature and seriousness of the offense, the person’s culpability in connection with the offense."

Mueller concluded that under the guidelines, what Jr. did should not be prosecuted.

This may be a shock if you think every single crime is prosecuted. Nope.

• • •

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 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. Image
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
Feb 10
Interesting tidbit: The obstruction statute being used to prosecute lots of the insurrection cases, U.S.C. 1512(c)(2) was part of an Act passed in 2002 in the wake of the Enron scandal specifically to prosecute destruction of records that might be needed in future proceedings.
Of course, this is the law so it's never as easy as it seems.

If there is a tricky word in this statute, it would be "official proceeding."

Would there need to be a specific proceeding on the horizon?

The Enron executives . . . Image
. . . the Enron (Arthur Anderson) executives started shredding documents after an investigation was opened into their corrupt practices, but before a subpoena was issued.
Read 5 tweets
Feb 9
I think the real question is what a post-Trump GOP will look like.

If white power militias, hardcore reactionaries, and zany conspiracy theorists still have a place in the GOP, the problem won't leave with Trump.
morningshots.thebulwark.com/p/a-gop-cracku…
The reactionary Supreme Court justices, for example, have shown that they have no interest in saving Trump, but they're committed to promoting the agenda of the "religious right," for example, by taking the teeth from the Voting Rights Act.
Exactly.

The problem is what political scientist @dziblatt
calls the "Conservative Dilemma," which in a nutshell says that conservative economic policies (when presented truthfully) are unpopular so to win elections, they invite in the right-wing fringe.
Read 4 tweets
Feb 7
Timothy Snyder calls them Internet Triggers.

He explains that they're bad for democracy because they prevent us from thinking complex thoughts.

People see these Triggers on social media because they are directed at them. . .
This happens partly because of algorithms and partly because you tend to follow accounts that have built your trust by tweeting things you agree with.

People mindlessly repeat these triggers. They are then transformed into "repeaters of targeted memes" . . .
Snyder finds this terrifying because democracy depends on us having “some sense of time beyond our immediate outrage.”

A good example would be Tweeting this ⤵️after 768 indictments as part of an ongoing investigation during a pandemic. . . .
Read 9 tweets
Feb 4
I've been hoping for a turning point (a split in the party) for years . . .but Trump still controls the RNC, and mostly they still line up.

I don't see a split until they suffer an electoral bloodbath, either because enough voters turn against them or Trump turns on the party.
The strength they have is in local elections. See my earlier Tweet about what's happening in Shasta County.

Infighting among leaders won't change what's happening at the base, and what's happening at the base is where the danger is.
In other words, even if big shots start turning on each other, these people will still be fighting for control of local election boards and local school boards.
sacbee.com/news/californi…
Extremists won't give up even if Trump goes down.
They need to LOSE elections at every level.
Read 4 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!

:(