Profile picture
Seth Abramson
@SethAbramson
, 3 tweets, 1 min read Read on Twitter
So contrary to what Reps. Jordan/Turner said—which was apparently all lies intended to defend POTUS's lies—in fact Volker gave *substantial* testimony aiding the impeachment inquiry, including that Trump-Giuliani would've known they were asking Ukraine to *manufacture* evidence.
1/ If Trump's personal lawyer was told Ukraine had nothing to investigate *before* Trump asked for a quid pro quo and Pence threatened Ukraine, it means Trump, Pence and Giuliani were knowingly demanding a *fake* investigation and *fake* evidence in exchange for Javelin missiles.
2/ So the reason Reps. Jordan/Turner ran to the cameras after Volker's testimony seems to be that they thought the testimony was *devastating* and—taking their cue and M.O. from the boss—immediately told the American people the evidence was *nothing* in order to stave off damage.
Missing some Tweet in this thread?
You can try to force a refresh.

Like this thread? Get email updates or save it to PDF!

Subscribe to Seth Abramson
Profile picture

Get real-time email alerts when new unrolls are available from this author!

This content may be removed anytime!

Twitter may remove this content at anytime, convert it as a PDF, save and print for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video

1) Follow Thread Reader App on Twitter so you can easily mention us!

2) Go to a Twitter thread (series of Tweets by the same owner) and mention us with a keyword "unroll" @threadreaderapp unroll

You can practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @SethAbramson see all

Profile picture
Seth Abramson
@SethAbramson
(NOTE) Israeli Joel Zamel confessed to Trump adviser and current federal witness/defendant George Nader that he ran a disinformation campaign in 2016 to help Trump. Zamel's attorney is Marc Mukasey...

...a Giuliani "confidant" and the attorney for...

...the Trump Organization.
1/ Durham is investigating nonsense while we have Israeli election interference, engaged in with the knowledge of Don Jr., that we've no clear sense of ANYONE investigating. At some point the lack of federal investigation of this is aiding and abetting a national security threat.
2/ You want an impeachable quid pro quo? In 2016 Benjamin Netanyahu's office introduced the Trump campaign to election-interferer Joel Zamel *just as Trump was promising Netanyahu confidant Sheldon Adelson that he would move the U.S. embassy in Israel from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem*.
Read 4 tweets
Profile picture
Seth Abramson
@SethAbramson
At the risk of immodesty, @davidfrum, the biggest book of the Trump era is the "Proof" duology: two trade press-published NYT bestsellers; 1,400 pages total; 6,500 major-media citations; no errors. Thousands have tried to get media to pay attention to the duology and have failed.
@davidfrum 1/ When Woodward publicly argued the Russia case was a nothing-burger, I and the small group of Americans and Brits who've published bestsellers on the Russia case were livid because Bob's book was a gossamer web of false "reconstructed" conversations, all provided by Team Trump.
@davidfrum 2/ Bob hadn't researched Russia, so he knew nothing about the case, but because people like you, @davidfrum, treated FEAR as *the* book of the Trump era (solely because of Bob's fame), Bob became convinced of it, too: the idea his book would be the final word on everything Trump.
Read 6 tweets
Profile picture
Seth Abramson
@SethAbramson
Democrats will never appreciate the cost of dumping the ten obstruction allegations Mueller proved beyond a reasonable doubt. Every day thousands of posts on social media falsely allege that "nothing came of" the Trump-Russia probe. Mueller didn't cause that; the *Democrats* did.
1/ Moreover, by running from the Mueller Report, the Democrats lost the ability to point out what's blindingly obvious to anyone who's read it: that Mueller found wall-to-wall collusion, and only struggled to prove a crime because evidence was withheld, lied about, and destroyed.
2/ As the Ukraine scandal deepens, so too does the Russia scandal, not merely because they're connected, but because what we've learned about Trump's outreach to Ukraine and China confirms long-held suspicions about what was *covered up* with respect to his collusion with Russia.
Read 6 tweets

Related threads

Profile picture
Puesto Loco™
@PuestoLoco
Call & tell these AL & AZ Reps to STOP enabling Trump & being AGAINST @HouseJudiciary #IMPEACHMENT inquiry;
#AL07 @RepTerriSewell 202-225-2665
Arizona
#AZ01 @TomOhalleran 202-225-3361
Call & tell these California Reps to STOP enabling Trump by being AGAINST @HouseJudiciary #IMPEACHMENT inquiry:

#CA05 @RepThompson 202-225-3311
#CA07 @RepBera 202-225-5716
#CA09 @RepMcNerney 202-225-1947
#CA10 @RepJoshHarder 202-225-4540
#CA12 @SpeakerPelosi 202-225-4965
Call & tell these California Reps to STOP enabling Trump & being AGAINST @HouseJudiciary #IMPEACHMENT inquiry:

#CA16 @RepJimCosta 202-225-3341
#CA18 @RepAnnaEshoo 202-225-8104
#CA20 @RepJimmyPanetta 202-225-2861
#CA21 @RepTJCox 202-225-4695
Read 29 tweets
Profile picture
Maya Wiley
@mayawiley
Agree that @jackgoldsmith makes impt pts but implication wld be no way to protect Nat’l security from a rogue #POTUS. AND...
As I tweeted yesterday...Congress has not conceded the point, explicitly reserving its position that it has a constitutional “need to know” of intelligence community wrong-doing.
Now imagine that a #POTUS subverts laws of the #US but does it in part, by sharing classified info w a foreign govt. Maybe it’s #treason or taking a bribe = unquestionably impeachable offenses.
Read 9 tweets
Profile picture
Peter Daou
@peterdaou
THREAD — THERE IS NO #IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY

Deeply troubling that #Pelosi and #Nadler are trying to obfuscate and confuse Democratic voters.

But let's be clear, as CNN reports today: "Pelosi and Nadler have so far resisted the pressure from within their party to open an inquiry."
THERE'S NO IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY

After months of intense activist pressure @SpeakerPelosi and @RepJerryNadler realized they had to throw Dems a bone, so they concocted a convoluted narrative to make it appear the #impeachment process has begun. It hasn't.

@SpeakerPelosi @RepJerryNadler THERE'S NO IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY

Let's be honest: Dem leaders want to punt to 2020 voters while Trump abuses power with total abandon.

#Nadler's words: “If an impeachment inquiry is if you’re considering only impeachment, that’s not what we’re doing.”

Read 7 tweets
Profile picture
Positively Spiritual Annie
@AnniePositively
It's time I had my say about #Impeachment, DJT's obstructionistic tactics, and @SpeakerPelosi's not pushing for an inquiry yet.

When AG Barr released the redacted version of the report to Congress, he did *not* include any of the underlying documents on which Mueller relied.

1/
Just like a lawsuit, a case has to be built based on facts and evidence. Both the Intelligence Committee and the Judiciary Committee have been working their way through the system, including voting to hold AG Barr in Contempt of Congress. DJT has been fighting them in court.

2/
Meanwhile, the Ways and Means Committee has also been working on getting DJT's tax returns. One of the Committees has also been working on getting records subpoenaed from DJT's financial management firm and from Deutche Bank, known for Russian money laundering.

3/
Read 16 tweets
Profile picture
Peter Daou
@peterdaou
THREAD: DEBUNKING ANTI-IMPEACHMENT ARGUMENTS

I wrote a piece taking apart the specious arguments against #impeachment

You know, things like "the Senate won't convict..." "It's too divisive..." "Trump is goading Dems..." and so on.

peterdaou.com/no-good-argume…
SPIN: The Senate won’t convict so there’s no point impeaching in the House.

FACT: It doesn't matter what the Senate does. The Constitution demands impeachment.
SPIN: Democrats need to gather more evidence to make an airtight case for impeachment.

FACT: We don't need more evidence.
Read 12 tweets
Profile picture
Oeishik M.G. C. JD
@TributeProjects
A note on #impeachment -

In a court of law, under non-presidential circumstances, impeachment is a tool litigation attorneys use to discredit the opposing side's witnesses at trial. When said witness takes the stand under oath attys. present evidence contrary to what the witness
claims. This weakens the other side's case by discrediting impeached witnesses's testimony. Once a witness has been impeached - by presentment of inconsistent testimony - the judge/jury can no longer use the impeached witnesses's testimony in reaching a verdict.
Simply put, they aren't trustworthy. In the case of Presidential impeachment that broad definition of impeachment applies, but the impeachment tool is used for a very different purpose. Under the Constitution, a sitting President cannot be tried in a court of law for anything.
Read 25 tweets

Trending hashtags

#ShiftySchiff #TuesdayThoughts #MI08 #Ukraine #IA02 #CA18 #KAG #NJ02 #WeAreTheNewsNow #UNITEDNOTDIVIDED #impeachment #NY22 #CO07 #NM02 #Impeachment #LifeLog #LA #FL13 #CA28 #ImpeachmentInquiry #SOTU #Bloomberg #PresidentialHarassment #SC01 #TrustThePlan
Follow Us on Twitter!

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!

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

Become a Premium Member ($3.00/month or $30.00/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

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

Donate via Paypal Become our Patreon

Thank you for your support!