Share this page!

Maybe Scrolly?
Teri Kanefield Profile picture
Twitter logo
Feb 16 • 7 tweets • 3 min read
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.
But this was so dumb to publish the letter.


He spends the first page of his announcement explaining that he has the greatest company with fantastic assets that are "unique" and because of 'enthusiasm,' the brand was worth even more than he listed.
In other words, he was explaining his creative accounting. Now, here's the good part: How he characterizes the fact that Mazars is cutting ties with him.

Mazars (he says) were "scared beyond belief . . . "

Yeah, well, duh. They don't want to be the next Arthur Anderson . . .
Of course, they are scared.

The Trump Org (their client) and the Trump CFO are under indictment for criminal fraud including falsifying records.

But Trump sees Mazars as not having the "courage to fight" and the letter a "forced letter of surrender."
I read it the same way: A lame attempt to coddle and cajole Mazars into not testifying against him.

It should be obvious to Trump that Mazars is cooperating, but I guess delusion is his thing, right?

• • •

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

Teri Kanefield Profile picture
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
Teri Kanefield Profile picture
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
Teri Kanefield Profile picture
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
Teri Kanefield Profile picture
Feb 11
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 . . .
Read 15 tweets
Teri Kanefield Profile picture
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
Teri Kanefield Profile picture
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

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!

Like this author's thread?

Get emails when @Teri_Kanefield has new unrolls!

Check out other threads from @Teri_Kanefield!

Read all threads by @Teri_Kanefield

:(