(FULL INSURRECTION VIDEO) I post this to counteract the lies being spread by Trump supporters about what happened during the coup attempt on Wednesday. Be advised that this video gets scary and violent.
PS/ Note the many references in the video to "burning this down" and "revolution"; the willful, wanton destruction of property; the repeated assaults on law enforcement; the many insurrectionists in tactical gear; the legitimate fear on the faces of officers vastly outnumbered...
PS2/ ...the law enforcement officers told, sometimes civilly and sometimes not—sometimes directly, sometimes indirectly—that they will be physically harmed by the mob if they don't stand down; the angry refusal of every lawful order given by law enforcement inside the building...
PS3/ ...the consciousness of guilt of the criminals that what they're doing is a historic assault, frequently articulated in words and on their faces; the sea of Gadsden flags, Trump flags, even Confederate flags, all waved to rally more rioters to climb through broken windows...
PS4/ ...the chanting of a phrase Trump deeded them ("Stop the Steal!") as they commit crimes; the accusations police are "traitors"; the use of military terms by the invaders; the acknowledge that they're in the midst of a "riot"; a constant exhortation to "push" past officers...
PS5/ ...the constant admonishment of law enforcement officers that they're about to be overtaken by a superior force; chants of "We want Trump!" (a seditionist chant in this context); the room-to-room invasion, progressing methodically with a plan for where rioters need to get...
PS6/ The constant sound of breaking glass and percussion grenades, and the constant smell of tear gas and other chemical irritants, and the constant—but ignored—orders from law enforcement, that made unambiguous to every criminal trespasser that they were violating federal law...
PS7/ ...the solitary voices pleading for non-violence getting shouted down with more vulgarities and jeering and more threats against police ("No violence!" a man shouts; "It's too late for that," another responds); the notice to the rioters—ignored—that the military is coming...
PS8/ ...the fact that this video—as horrifying as it is—is what's called by the rioters a "second wave" video, meaning that it *doesn't* capture the first criminals to breach to Capitol (who smashed windows/doors, assaulted police, and were gassed and shot with rubber bullets)...
PS9/ ...and the horrifying moments at the House chamber doors, with insurrectionists looking for a crowbar or heavy object to break the glass, officers getting assaulted and afraid for their lives, Members of Congress under real threat, and Ashli Babbitt getting shot and killed.
PS10/ This is what a seditious riot led by insurrectionists looks like. This is what a coup looks like. So if you have the stomach for it, you should deem it a duty to watch this video so *no one* can lie to you about Trump's Rebellion because you can say, "I saw it myself." /end
NOTE/ I know many won't make it to the end of the video—and that's wholly understandable. The video shocks any viewer to their core. But be aware that the worst of it—starting with the "BREAK IT DOWN!" chants and the deadly violence that follows—doesn't begin until 31 minutes in.
NOTE2/ I also want to note—beyond saying again that this is "only" a "second wave" video—that we're not getting the perspective of the terrified victims in the building: the staffers and officials who hid beneath desks as rioters rocked the doors of the House and Senate chambers.
NOTE3/ If you have a decent stomach but do not want to watch someone die because you fear it will haunt you—as it may—stop the video the moment you hear a gunshot.
(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.…