You could point your finger at the authority figure who invited you to commit the illegal act.
https://t.co/QwdXVmXXuk
2/
The Authority Figure Defense
My latest for the Washington Post with https://t.co/QwdXVmXXuk
The" target="_blank">@reichellaw
https://t.co/QwdXVmXXuk
The Public Authority Defense will make it harder for the Trumps, Giuliani, and pals to squirm out of facing consequences.
1/
You could point your finger at the authority figure who invited you to commit the illegal act.
https://t.co/QwdXVmXXuk
2/
If not, was it reasonable for you to believe that he did?
See where this is going?
https://t.co/QwdXVmXXuk
3/
Every day, more evidence emerges that the lies told by people like @tedcruz, @HawleyMO, and @KellyannePolls led to the violence.
https://t.co/QwdXVmXXuk
4/
But depending on the circumstances, a defense like this one can mitigate or even eliminate their culpability or lessen their punishment.
5/
How would it look to a jury if the people who incited the failed insurrection go free, while the foot soldiers doing their bidding pay the price?
6/
What it may take to stop these liars— and deter others from spreading lies — will be seeing their names dragged into a criminal trial as part of a defense, which shines the spotlight on them.
7/
Maybe this will make them care.
https://t.co/QwdXVmXXuk
8/
9/
https://t.co/2lYIEGpZ6C
Naturally, people like @tedcruz, @HawleyMO, and @KellyannePolls want to be able to "condemn" the violence they sparked and then avoid personal responsibility for their destructive lies.
9/
Brian Kilmeade says Trump voters are angry that 'Trump was robbed' even though Trump has been "unable to prove that in 70+ cases," therefore we should all just move on from the Jan 6 insurrection since all those people "are ready to explode." pic.twitter.com/8nd5oBXfmL
— Bobby Lewis (@revrrlewis) January 11, 2021
More from Teri Kanefield
Reading recommendation: Rand Corp, "The Russian Firehose of Falsehoods Propaganda Model," includes advice on how to counter a rapid and continuous stream of lies.
https://t.co/1Jg5CvgrJC
1/
The liar has a “shameless willingness” to tell outrageous lies that lots of people know are lies.
The liar doesn’t care about consistency.
He doesn’t care if it’s obvious he’s lying.
https://t.co/C08paJsKTT
In fact, that's the whole point.
Putin perfected the method.
2/
It seems to come naturally to Trump.
@TimothyDSnyder tells how reporters were often so astonished by Putin's outrageous lies, that they focused on the lies instead of Putin's latest atrocities.
The lies became the news.
The actual news gets pushed off the stage.
3/
The goal is the “disruption of truthful reporting and messaging.”
https://t.co/C08paJsKTT
That's why Trump really wants an actual trial, and why he was so annoyed with the Supreme Court (and other courts) refusing to hear the case.
He wants a stage for the lies.
4/
From the Rand study: The Firehose of Falsehood technique “entertains, confuses and overwhelms the audience.”
I think the "entertainment" part applies to the GOP leadership who know Trump is lying but cheer the lies because they are so destructive.
5/
https://t.co/1Jg5CvgrJC
1/
The liar has a “shameless willingness” to tell outrageous lies that lots of people know are lies.
The liar doesn’t care about consistency.
He doesn’t care if it’s obvious he’s lying.
https://t.co/C08paJsKTT
In fact, that's the whole point.
Putin perfected the method.
2/
It seems to come naturally to Trump.
@TimothyDSnyder tells how reporters were often so astonished by Putin's outrageous lies, that they focused on the lies instead of Putin's latest atrocities.
The lies became the news.
The actual news gets pushed off the stage.
3/
The goal is the “disruption of truthful reporting and messaging.”
https://t.co/C08paJsKTT
That's why Trump really wants an actual trial, and why he was so annoyed with the Supreme Court (and other courts) refusing to hear the case.
He wants a stage for the lies.
4/
From the Rand study: The Firehose of Falsehood technique “entertains, confuses and overwhelms the audience.”
I think the "entertainment" part applies to the GOP leadership who know Trump is lying but cheer the lies because they are so destructive.
5/
KM asks why the GOP leadership is terrified of losing.
(Both Lindsay Graham and Matt Gaetz said if the GOP loses this election, they'll never win again.)
GOP is a minority party. If they lose power, they lose the ability to manipulate systems to keep minority control.
1/
The fear is also explained by Richard Hofstader, who wrote the classic work⤵️
Hofstadter reviewed American politics from before the founding of the nation through McCarthyism. He noticed a pattern among an impassioned minority on the fringes of the political spectrum.
2/
He called their behavior the “paranoid style” in politics.
Those embracing the paranoid style of politics believe that unseen satanic forces are trying to destroy something larger in which they belong.
3/
According to Hofstadter, the “something larger” to which they belong is generally phrased as “the American way of life.”
They “feel dispossessed” and that “America has been largely taken away from them and their kind.”
4/
They therefore adopt extreme measures. They will stop at nothing to prevent what they see as an impending calamity.
Remember, Hofstadter published this in the early 1960s.
5/
(Both Lindsay Graham and Matt Gaetz said if the GOP loses this election, they'll never win again.)
GOP is a minority party. If they lose power, they lose the ability to manipulate systems to keep minority control.
1/
Does their life end if they lose an election? Is it worth a complete loss of integrity??
— KM (@Kyarmot) November 10, 2020
The fear is also explained by Richard Hofstader, who wrote the classic work⤵️
Hofstadter reviewed American politics from before the founding of the nation through McCarthyism. He noticed a pattern among an impassioned minority on the fringes of the political spectrum.
2/
He called their behavior the “paranoid style” in politics.
Those embracing the paranoid style of politics believe that unseen satanic forces are trying to destroy something larger in which they belong.
3/
According to Hofstadter, the “something larger” to which they belong is generally phrased as “the American way of life.”
They “feel dispossessed” and that “America has been largely taken away from them and their kind.”
4/
They therefore adopt extreme measures. They will stop at nothing to prevent what they see as an impending calamity.
Remember, Hofstadter published this in the early 1960s.
5/
It looks like 45 Republican Senators voted against holding an impeachment trial for Trump.
I hope nobody had high hopes that the GOP would do the right thing.
The GOP remains the Party of Trump and is hardening into an extremist anti-democratic
They are the anti-rule of law, anti truth party. https://t.co/e6EME39xNn
Fortunately, they're outnumbered.
Not by much, but they're outnumbered.
Hi, everyone.
A lot of these doomsday comments are annoying me.
Have you all learned nothing over the past few years?
You might want to duck because, I'm about to go on a tear . . .
The same people telling me we're doomed and democracy is dead are probably the same people who told me (1) Trump would make himself dictator (2) The Supreme Court would keep him in office and (3) he would never leave the White House.
Nobody owes you a democracy . . .
My mantra the past 4 years: democracy will survive if enough people want it to, and are willing to do the work.
Did the doomsday people happen to see that the vote was 55-45 in favor of holding a trial?
I think the problem is there has been so much peddling of hope porn. . .
I hope nobody had high hopes that the GOP would do the right thing.
The GOP remains the Party of Trump and is hardening into an extremist anti-democratic
They are the anti-rule of law, anti truth party. https://t.co/e6EME39xNn
Fortunately, they're outnumbered.
Not by much, but they're outnumbered.
They clearly aren\u2019t the party of LAW AND ORDER
— DWUK (@UKfriendlyguy) January 26, 2021
Hi, everyone.
A lot of these doomsday comments are annoying me.
Have you all learned nothing over the past few years?
You might want to duck because, I'm about to go on a tear . . .
The same people telling me we're doomed and democracy is dead are probably the same people who told me (1) Trump would make himself dictator (2) The Supreme Court would keep him in office and (3) he would never leave the White House.
Nobody owes you a democracy . . .
My mantra the past 4 years: democracy will survive if enough people want it to, and are willing to do the work.
Did the doomsday people happen to see that the vote was 55-45 in favor of holding a trial?
I think the problem is there has been so much peddling of hope porn. . .
January 6th will be a freak show. Biden will become president because the only way to stop it would be for the House to agree, and that won't happen.
Going forward, the GOP becomes even more dangerous and radicalized.
A few hopeful points:
The GOP could very well lose control of the Senate.
Because these GOP Senators will force a vote, the GOP may fracture, with moderates forced out. While this radicalizes the party, they lose
A few reasons. As @ProfBrianKalt points out, refusing to seat them because they say the election wasn't valid gives credence to the lie that the election wasn't valid.
Moreover, there's no authority to refuse to seat an elected rep for telling lies. .
. . . which is what refusing to seat them would amount to.
The Democrats say, "You are doing really bad things so we won't seat you."
See the problem with that?
(1) It's illegal. The House doesn't get to decide who is seated. The states send their own reps.
moreover . . .
(2) If you say, "The House gets to refuse to seat a person who tells a lie about the election," where does that lead?
If things continue this direction, the political divide will not longer be liberal v. conservative.
The divide will be pro- democracy v. anti-democracy. . .
Going forward, the GOP becomes even more dangerous and radicalized.
What do you see as an outcome of this Teri?
— AnimalsIntuit (@copplestonearts) January 2, 2021
A few hopeful points:
The GOP could very well lose control of the Senate.
Because these GOP Senators will force a vote, the GOP may fracture, with moderates forced out. While this radicalizes the party, they lose
What do you see as an outcome of this Teri?
— AnimalsIntuit (@copplestonearts) January 2, 2021
A few reasons. As @ProfBrianKalt points out, refusing to seat them because they say the election wasn't valid gives credence to the lie that the election wasn't valid.
Moreover, there's no authority to refuse to seat an elected rep for telling lies. .
Why won\u2019t the Dems in Congress give some consequences? Like refusing to seat those participating in sedition?
— Teacher Sarah (@cmommy77) January 2, 2021
. . . which is what refusing to seat them would amount to.
The Democrats say, "You are doing really bad things so we won't seat you."
See the problem with that?
(1) It's illegal. The House doesn't get to decide who is seated. The states send their own reps.
moreover . . .
(2) If you say, "The House gets to refuse to seat a person who tells a lie about the election," where does that lead?
If things continue this direction, the political divide will not longer be liberal v. conservative.
The divide will be pro- democracy v. anti-democracy. . .
More from Politics
Here's why I bother to do the search, and even take the time to check.
This is part of a pattern that as detailed by Mueller, and has been proven by reputable studies since then. Here are parts of an Oxford report on the goals of the ongoing social media operations of Russia. https://t.co/qapD8Eh2SQ
https://t.co/nJPPOwF1MA
The full report can be found here.
https://t.co/1q525xWYZE
Excertps from the 2019 Senate Intelligence Committee Report on Russian Actove Measures Campaigns and Interference:
Also form the Senate Intelligence Committee report
This is part of a pattern that as detailed by Mueller, and has been proven by reputable studies since then. Here are parts of an Oxford report on the goals of the ongoing social media operations of Russia. https://t.co/qapD8Eh2SQ
Here's some from a search of your TL
— \U0001d679\U0001d698\U0001d691\U0001d697 \U0001d686\U0001d68e\U0001d69c\U0001d695\U0001d68e\U0001d6a2 (@thepalemoonlt) April 21, 2021
Uses of the word prison before today: 13.
Tweets for specifically suggesting abolishing prison prior to today: 1 on 06/03/2020
Mentions of prison and abolishing it today: 8
Of all the times to speak out, Why did you choose to now? https://t.co/kl7gx7ky2H
https://t.co/nJPPOwF1MA
The full report can be found here.
https://t.co/1q525xWYZE
Excertps from the 2019 Senate Intelligence Committee Report on Russian Actove Measures Campaigns and Interference:
Also form the Senate Intelligence Committee report
You May Also Like
"I lied about my basic beliefs in order to keep a prestigious job. Now that it will be zero-cost to me, I have a few things to say."
We know that elite institutions like the one Flier was in (partial) charge of rely on irrelevant status markers like private school education, whiteness, legacy, and ability to charm an old white guy at an interview.
Harvard's discriminatory policies are becoming increasingly well known, across the political spectrum (see, e.g., the recent lawsuit on discrimination against East Asian applications.)
It's refreshing to hear a senior administrator admits to personally opposing policies that attempt to remedy these basic flaws. These are flaws that harm his institution's ability to do cutting-edge research and to serve the public.
Harvard is being eclipsed by institutions that have different ideas about how to run a 21st Century institution. Stanford, for one; the UC system; the "public Ivys".
As a dean of a major academic institution, I could not have said this. But I will now. Requiring such statements in applications for appointments and promotions is an affront to academic freedom, and diminishes the true value of diversity, equity of inclusion by trivializing it. https://t.co/NfcI5VLODi
— Jeffrey Flier (@jflier) November 10, 2018
We know that elite institutions like the one Flier was in (partial) charge of rely on irrelevant status markers like private school education, whiteness, legacy, and ability to charm an old white guy at an interview.
Harvard's discriminatory policies are becoming increasingly well known, across the political spectrum (see, e.g., the recent lawsuit on discrimination against East Asian applications.)
It's refreshing to hear a senior administrator admits to personally opposing policies that attempt to remedy these basic flaws. These are flaws that harm his institution's ability to do cutting-edge research and to serve the public.
Harvard is being eclipsed by institutions that have different ideas about how to run a 21st Century institution. Stanford, for one; the UC system; the "public Ivys".
The first area to focus on is diversity. This has become a dogma in the tech world, and despite the fact that tech is one of the most meritocratic industries in the world, there are constant efforts to promote diversity at the expense of fairness, merit and competency. Examples:
USC's Interactive Media & Games Division cancels all-star panel that included top-tier game developers who were invited to share their experiences with students. Why? Because there were no women on the
ElectronConf is a conf which chooses presenters based on blind auditions; the identity, gender, and race of the speaker is not known to the selection team. The results of that merit-based approach was an all-male panel. So they cancelled the conference.
Apple's head of diversity (a black woman) got in trouble for promoting a vision of diversity that is at odds with contemporary progressive dogma. (She left the company shortly after this
Also in the name of diversity, there is unabashed discrimination against men (especially white men) in tech, in both hiring policies and in other arenas. One such example is this, a developer workshop that specifically excluded men: https://t.co/N0SkH4hR35
USC's Interactive Media & Games Division cancels all-star panel that included top-tier game developers who were invited to share their experiences with students. Why? Because there were no women on the
ElectronConf is a conf which chooses presenters based on blind auditions; the identity, gender, and race of the speaker is not known to the selection team. The results of that merit-based approach was an all-male panel. So they cancelled the conference.
Apple's head of diversity (a black woman) got in trouble for promoting a vision of diversity that is at odds with contemporary progressive dogma. (She left the company shortly after this
Also in the name of diversity, there is unabashed discrimination against men (especially white men) in tech, in both hiring policies and in other arenas. One such example is this, a developer workshop that specifically excluded men: https://t.co/N0SkH4hR35
