(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.…
(WSJ2) "...in blaze orange hats and military-style vests turned a nearby street corner, marching straight toward them. In a matter of moments, the two groups merged and the crowd swelled to hundreds and surged forward, toppling a metal barricade..."
(WSJ3) "...at the curbside and charging up two small flights of stone steps toward five startled officers of the Capitol."
The Wall Street Journal makes clear the "orange hats" were a spark that ignited the assault on the Capitol. CNN says they were Proud Boys; McInnes says no.
(NOTE) I always strive to be accurate. While I have no reason or inclination to trust anything Gavin McInnes says, and while I have comparatively *substantial* reason to trust what CNN reports, I'm happy to wait until there's corroboration of CNN's claims about the "orange hats."
(UPDATE) CNN amended its article:
"Correction: An earlier version of this story associated men pictured wearing orange hats and flashing the OK sign with a particular group, but the ADL is no longer certain of their affiliations to that group so the reference has been removed."
(CORRECTION) With CNN retracting its claim that Proud Boys were wearing orange hats at Trump's insurrection—it's now saying that the affiliation of the orange-capped paramilitary group is unknown—I of course would adopt the same position, as I was working from CNN reporting only.
(UPDATE2) The presence of Proud Boys in blaze orange hats and tactical gear at the January 6 assault on the Capitol has been (re-)confirmed. See this thread (@sarasidnerCNN@MallorySimonCNN):
January 6 was an insurrection ensconced in a traveling circus. Many at the Capitol were criminally trespassing, looting, desecrating and shoving, which makes it harder to focus on the far more dangerous, armed core of intruders—still large—which had treasonous mission objectives.
Most arrests so far have involved members of the traveling circus. They committed serious crimes, and will be punished. But I'm far more focused on those who planned to burn ballots, take hostages, steal sensitive equipment, and possibly kill the Vice President and House Speaker.
Media is focusing on the silliest figures in the insurrection—like a guy in a Viking helmet and the guy with Pelosi's lectern. My focus is on the men in tactical gear working with military precision who were armed and carrying zip ties and knew how to get where they needed to go.
Take the 7 *most-used words* in Trump's 1/6 incitement-to-insurrection speech—a speech in which he said he wanted all the people present to go to the Capitol because the country needed to be saved from fraudulent ballots—and you get:
WANT ALL PEOPLE GOING BECAUSE BALLOTS COUNTRY
(PS) The word cloud above includes *only* the words Trump used a dozen times or more in his January 6 speech, and excludes (as word clouds always do) articles and conjunctions.
(PS2) I just think it's interesting to consider the words the Trumpists would've had ringing in their ears the most pre-insurrection. We also see, of course, FIGHT, HELL, ELECTION, FRAUD, NEVER and other words that both focus the attention and are intended to produce raw emotion.
I've now watched almost all of the "Save America March" rally. A number of the speeches I've watched more than once. The number of times Team Trump yells at the mob of Trump fanatics, white supremacists, far-right militiamen and other insurrectionists to "FIGHT!" is *staggering*.
(PS) Many Americans haven't processed yet how strange it is for "FIGHT!" to be the key—clearly *coordinated*—theme of what pretends to be a protest. There was almost *no* talk at the Save America March rally about "making your voice heard." The refrain was, "FIGHT! FIGHT! FIGHT!"
(PS2) Trump—only one of many January 6 speakers—used the term 20 times, along with violent rhetoric throughout his speech. The crowd repeatedly started chants that used (echoed) the word. Other speakers repeatedly used it. Don's mid-rally livestream featured the word prominently.
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."
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
(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.
(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.