Several thoughts. First, some of these judgments may be revisited by a new DOJ. Second, those who think they know all the evidence involved in Trump's insurrection haven't been reading the news; more is emerging by the minute. There's increasingly evidence of criminal conspiracy.
(PS) Incitement charges would view the words of Trump, Jr., Giuliani, and Brooks in a vacuum—i.e. assume that mere words are the entirety of the evidence against those individuals. The emerging evidence suggests that the attack on the Capitol was the result of a coordinated plan.
(PS2) Why was Trump's lawyer telling GOP senators to "slow it down" as a "strategy," even as Trump was inciting a crowd to think he'd go to the Capitol to interrupt the certification? Why did he flee to the White House? Why was he "pleased" at the attack?
(PS3) Andrew McCabe had it right: a full DOJ probe under Biden will interview *everyone* who was with Trump before the rally, during the rally, and at the White House afterward to determine the state of mind of Trump and his team regarding the attack on the Capitol Trump incited.
(PS4) Lest you think I'm in left field here: Harry Litman, who follows this feed and is a CNN legal analyst, is on CNN *right now* saying that Trump may be guilty of criminal conspiracy to impede an election—essentially conspiracy to commit election fraud—under federal statutes.
(PS5) I'd add that we don't know who this DOJ source is. If it's a spokesman for the apparent Trump stooge who's acting AG, it's wholly possible that talk of an incitement investigation is being downplayed to ensure that the DOJ isn't brought into the impeachment-or-25th debate.

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
 

Keep Current with Seth Abramson

Seth Abramson 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 @SethAbramson

10 Jan
(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. ImageImageImageImage
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.
2/ DONALD TRUMP JR.

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.
Read 10 tweets
10 Jan
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 Image
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.
Read 8 tweets
10 Jan
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
(PS) I mean "impeached and convicted," of course. (See tweet above.) @AshaRangappa_ @FrankFigliuzzi1 @joshscampbell @juliettekayyem
(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.
Read 4 tweets
10 Jan
🧐 ImageImage
(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.
(MORE) Hat tip to @snowgimper and @tyler_digital. ImageImageImageImage
Read 4 tweets
10 Jan
(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.
Read 18 tweets
10 Jan
(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. Image
(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.…
Read 9 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

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!

Follow Us on Twitter!