Never forget that the "Stop the Steal" hashtag Trump promoted was intended from the start to dovetail with his call for a march on Congress—and result in actions at the Capitol that would *literally* "stop" the "steal" by stopping Congress' joint session.
Team Trump wanted this.
(PS) This is why Giuliani's misplaced call to Sen. Tuberville—accidentally sent to another senator—is such critical evidence in this ongoing criminal investigation. Trump's lawyer explicitly said Team Trump's goal was to delay the certification of Biden's win.
This was a *plot*.
(PS2) Trump and his team believed an armed insurrection would delay the certification of Biden's win for *days*. That's why we now have reporting that Trump was "pleased" and "delighted" at the insurrection and "confused" that anyone in the White House had a different reaction.
(PS3) As for Pence, we must bluntly say what we all know to be true—Trump didn't care if the Vice President of the United States lived or died as part of the armed insurrection he deliberately incited. And indeed, the seditionists were *hunting* Pence in the halls of the Capitol.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
(THREAD) To understand the second impeachment of Donald Trump, we must understand the words that preceded and augmented his January 6 incitement of insurrection. This thread unpacks four key speeches—Don Jr., Giuliani, Mo Brooks, and Eric Trump. I hope you'll read on and RETWEET.
1/ If you haven't yet seen my analysis of Trump's January 6 "incitement to insurrection" speech, you can find it at the link below. This thread will look at four shorter—but deeply consequential—speeches just before Trump's, all by Trump allies or family.
Trump Jr.'s speech on January 6—which ended less than an hour before his father incited an insurrection—is one of the most inscrutable of the day, because its beginning includes some promisingly responsible rhetoric. Then it descends into madness and chaos.
A question I'd like constitutional scholars to address is whether a senator sitting as a juror in an impeachment trial can decide that the standard of proof for conviction is different from that for disqualification from future candidacy and vote for the latter but not the former
As I read Article I, Section 3, the utmost punishment the United States Senate can impose following an impeachment trial is either or both of removal from office and disqualification from future candidacy. It's not clear in the text itself that the two punishments are conjoined.
Of course constitutional scholars will have done substantial research on this subject, and will know the case law on the question—particularly how the Supreme Court has interpreted the punctuation here, which makes it unclear if the possible punishments are conjoined or discrete.
The "perks"? Isn't the main concern that Trump will continue to get classified national security briefings during his post-presidency unless he's impeached? It seems to me impeaching Trump is a national security issue, unless I'm missing something? @AshaRangappa_@FrankFigliuzzi1
(PS2) To those saying the briefings are discretionary, even if they are, a) Trump will ask for them, b) he'll run in '24 if not impeached/convicted, c) the whole GOP will howl if Biden yanks them without the—wholly appropriate—cover of an impeachment/conviction. It'd be v. messy.
(NOTE) This feed has promoted nonviolence since its inception. I profoundly object to any expressions of violence directed toward the Proud Boys or anyone else. As an attorney, I believe in our lawful and peaceful system of justice as being the appropriate response to any crimes.
(THREAD) Gavin McInnes—co-founder of the Proud Boys—has claimed that no Proud Boys were wearing orange caps during the Capitol assault. He may be right. I don't know. Here's a video of the Proud Boys walking to the Capitol, which I analyze in this thread.
1/
0:46 Orange cap visible
1:17 Orange duct tape visible on man in tactical gear
1:23 Orange marking on man in tactical gear (helmet)
1:29 Orange duct-tape armbands (6 Proud Boys)
The Proud Boys are using military hand signals and many are carrying backpacks. Contents unknown.
2/ It's clear from the video that a contingent within the Proud Boys' military-style march—almost exclusively men who are at the head of the column—is wearing "blaze orange" armbands. The Wall Street Journal implies the Capitol assault was initiated by men in "blaze orange" hats.
(NEW) Gavin McInnes—founder of the Proud Boys—has taken to Parler to say I and CNN are wrong about Proud Boys wearing orange hats at Trump's insurrection. He's threatening a lawsuit.
To be clear, I was working from CNN's report only. I'll now wait to see what new info comes out.
(PS) *Some* paramilitary group wore orange knit caps on Wednesday. And *some* paramilitary group wearing such caps was the first to attack the barricades. Buzzfeed News says the Proud Boys had promised to "breach the Capitol." I guess we'll see if CNN has its information correct.
(WSJ1) "The milling crowd of Trump supporters had taken his invitation to march on the Capitol, but upon arriving at the steel fencing at the edge of the building’s western lawn, they seemed unsure of what to do next. Then, at 12:48PM, a clutch of men..." google.com/amp/s/www.wsj.…