,
10 tweets,
2 min read
Read on Twitter
Right. Assumption’s been that when he turned DOJ, or the military, or tanks, or whatever, on the good people of America, that no one would obey his orders.
But they do obey him. In front of all of us. Even when they’re told to lie. If you wait until it’s tanks, it’s too late.
But they do obey him. In front of all of us. Even when they’re told to lie. If you wait until it’s tanks, it’s too late.
TBC, I agree that Trump is weaponizing, not just talking or bumbling. And that he’s been modestly successful at it.
I don’t agree that all House Dems fail to grasp this. We are moving in a manner and pace that “makes a record.” Lawyers understand this well. So does Pelosi.
I don’t agree that all House Dems fail to grasp this. We are moving in a manner and pace that “makes a record.” Lawyers understand this well. So does Pelosi.
The obvious timetable for conclusion of impeachment hearings, and the vote, is to line up with November’s federal trial of Roger Stone, when evidence currently under the HOM blanket will be publicly revealed in Stone’s trial proceedings.
Pelosi looks like she’s right on schedule. We cannot show Trump’s definitive participation in an espionage conspiracy to put a Russian puppet in the WH, without that evidence. And publicizing it too soon would give Roger Stone defense tactics he doesn’t deserve.
Would upspeeding the move on Trump risk going forward to a vote without all the evidence? Yes.
Would that drastically increase the feeling of invulnerability Trump now has? Yes.
Would our personal risk increase on a hockey-stick curve? YES.
Would that drastically increase the feeling of invulnerability Trump now has? Yes.
Would our personal risk increase on a hockey-stick curve? YES.
Would it also blow up prosecuting his cronies, the people we CAN and ARE actually prosecuting now? YES.
If I’m Pelosi’s lawyer two weeks ago, I’d advise to adjust the message and make clear she’s not categorically opposed to impeachment. She did.
If I’m Pelosi’s lawyer two weeks ago, I’d advise to adjust the message and make clear she’s not categorically opposed to impeachment. She did.
If I’m her lawyer now, I advise she’s very much on target to build a strong grass-roots consensus for impeachment that has organic House and Senate backing, and coincides with a November trial that will slap a cherry on top.
So did I just change my mind in this thread? About the danger of rolling tanks?
Lol no. What’s the Trump threat on the table?
Open an investigation.
That’s his weaponization idea.
Think about that a moment.
Lol no. What’s the Trump threat on the table?
Open an investigation.
That’s his weaponization idea.
Think about that a moment.
And what did he tantrum his Barr flunky into ordering?
Declassification of evidence about what those agents did.
Heh.
Yeah, there’s a lot of wailing going on about how bad that will be. That’s “please don’t throw me in the briar patch.” We WANT Trump to declassify that trove.
Declassification of evidence about what those agents did.
Heh.
Yeah, there’s a lot of wailing going on about how bad that will be. That’s “please don’t throw me in the briar patch.” We WANT Trump to declassify that trove.
Barr’s a bad man, and he’ll do whatever Trump says to do. We know that. When dealing with a ruthless opponent who doesn’t follow any rules, you try to bait them into doing exactly what will help you.
