Share this page!

Seth Abramson Profile picture
Twitter logo
10 Jan, 6 tweets, 2 min read
BREAKING: Major media previously reported that Trump's insurrection was initiated by a gang of men in "blaze orange hats." CNN now confirms that these were the *Proud Boys*—the very white supremacist group Trump told to "stand by" at a presidential debate. cnn.com/2021/01/09/us/…
(PS) Per major media, the first seditionists to break down barricades and charge the Capitol were wearing "blaze orange hats," which again has now been confirmed to be the means by which the Proud Boys recognized one another during the insurrection. This is a stunning revelation.
(PS2) I can't tell you how many people are writing to remind me that the Proud Boys' leader was *at the White House* on the *very day* Trump excitedly tweeted about the January 6 rally. If this timeline is correct, we now have a *terrifying* synchronicity. google.com/amp/s/amp.usat…
(PS3) There are increasing indications that Team Trump used the Proud Boys to "kick off" the insurrection by providing the spark that turned a march to the Capitol into an *invasion* of the Capitol. I fear the real story of the insurrection is going to get very ugly very quickly.
(PS4) I wrote three books about Donald Trump's many political scandals, and one thing always remained consistent. The worst ones *always* featured two characters: Rudy Giuliani and Roger Stone.

Guess who Trump's liaison to the Proud Boys is? Roger Stone.

Who just got a pardon.
(PS5) 25 years ago, I was briefly a federal criminal investigator. And I'll tell you that if I were a federal criminal investigator today, what I'd be investigating is the likelihood that the attack on the Capitol was a criminal conspiracy involving Trump and his top associates.

• • •

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

Seth Abramson Profile picture
11 Jan
Without a doubt, one of the darker days in our history.

If it's revealed that the insurrection was not only plotted by Trump allies Biggs, Gosar, and Brooks, but that these men were in league with Trump and his team, it will be the darkest day *domestically* since the Civil War.
(PS) Ali Alexander, who's been photographed with Trump, says he worked with Gosar, Biggs and Brooks on the Capitol march as a means to dramatically delay certification of Biden's win—exactly what Trump lawyer Giuliani called Brooks' Alabama peer Tuberville to do mid-insurrection.
(PS2) There have been *five* major-media reports on Trump's reaction during the insurrection, which achieved the aim (delay) both he and his lawyer had sought to advance in phone calls during the assault: "pleased," "excited," "delighted," "giddy," and "borderline enthusiastic."
Read 6 tweets
Seth Abramson Profile picture
11 Jan
BREAKING NEWS: Official U.S. State Department Website Inexplicably Says Donald Trump's Presidency "Ended" at 7:49 PM Tonight (January 11); No Explanation Yet for Bizarre Website Edit Image
(PS) FWIW, I accessed the site at 3:02 PM ET, so the time in the screenshot above (7:49 PM) is not—as some are saying—UTC time. There may well be a computer glitch here, I don't know. Other screenshots have shown other times. But all are today, and State has not explained it yet.
(PS2) Regardless of time-stamp, it's not clear why the State Department would edit this presidency's official biography in *any* way that would say it ended on January 11—let alone do so on a day the House tried to get the Vice President to become Acting President. It is bizarre.
Read 18 tweets
Seth Abramson Profile picture
11 Jan
(1 of 2) I wrote a book about the January 2020 articles of impeachment, so I want to push back on some bad political/legal analysis.

The January 2020 articles were a *slam dunk*. It is the January 2021 article—in the way it was written—that is *very strong*, but not a slam dunk.
(2 of 2) The difference between the two impeachments is that the second so manifestly implicates national security that the standard of proof representatives/senators should apply is different. Under that lower standard of proof, voting for impeachment/conviction is a no-brainer.
(NOTE) What I think some political and legal analysts are doing is falsely saying that this article is stronger than the previous articles because the event *attached* to this impeachment was so dramatic and scary. But the "act" in the new article is *not* the riot, but a speech.
Read 4 tweets
Seth Abramson Profile picture
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 137 tweets
Seth Abramson Profile picture
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
Seth Abramson Profile picture
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

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!

Like this author's thread?

Get emails when @SethAbramson has new unrolls!

Check out other threads from @SethAbramson!

Read all threads by @SethAbramson