(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.
(NOTE2) In any event, the case that Trump should've been impeached in January 2020 is inarguable. And the case that he must be impeached now is inarguable. I would add that the case for him being impeached over his obstruction during the Russia investigation is *also* inarguable.

• • •

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

13 Jan
It can't be emphasized enough that the chief suspect in the January 6 insurrection, Ali Alexander—who has confessed to a seditious conspiracy with top Trump allies Andy Biggs, Paul Gosar, and Mo Brooks—is currently on the run, and being funded through donations from seditionists.
In order to establish that Trump, Giuliani and their agents planned/coordinated the January 6 insurrection, all that's needed is to establish that Trump was in contact with his top allies about a plan for January 6 before the day. That's it—that's how close the evidence has come.
We already know Ali Alexander has met with Trump; we know he claims to have "private" info about Trump's calls to people in Arizona; we know Trump was trying to overturn the Arizona vote via direct intervention. The chance he didn't plot with his Arizona allies is virtually zero.
Read 4 tweets
13 Jan
The new right-wing canard is Trump couldn't have incited because the breach happened before his speech was done. Three problems off the bat: 1) People left his speech early; 2) his agents seem to have known about the first wave; 3) inciting the second wave would still be a crime.
The same major-media sources some Trumpists are using for their timeline confirms that many people left Trump's speech early. But remember too that the whole event was a Team Trump joint, and the inciting speeches before his had plenty of time to send rally-goers to the Capitol.
Moreover, Donald Trump and his agents incited every single day leading up to January 6—even as they advertised the rally. So the fact that some of those incited by Trump (most notably, the Proud Boys) went *right to the Capitol* means nothing at all on the question of incitement.
Read 4 tweets
12 Jan
(THREAD) Over the past week, this feed has compiled over 250 major-media reports about the January 6 insurrection Trump incited. Evidence of a four-pronged seditious conspiracy has emerged. I summarize this evidence—all previously posted—here. I hope you will read on and RETWEET. ImageImageImageImage
1/ The main players in this thread (please note the recurrence of actors from Arizona and Alabama as well as the White House):

Trump
Giuliani
Rep. Biggs (R-AZ)
Rep. Gosar (R-AZ)
Rep. Brooks (R-AL)
Sen. Tuberville (R-AL)
Arizona Proud Boys
Alabama Attorney General Steve Marshall
2/ The picture I discuss here is an emerging picture. All individuals discussed in this thread are innocent until proven guilty. This thread is a compilation/curation of evidence already publicly reported by major-media—not an attempt to imply a final portrait has been developed.
Read 54 tweets
12 Jan
BREAKING: Video surfaces of a man who's a seeming face/dress match for the insurrectionist who beat a fallen Capitol officer using a U.S. flag as a weapon. "Death is the only remedy for what's in that building...everybody in there is a treasonous traitor."
(PHOTO) Here's a photo of what appears to be the insurrectionist in question, now (it seems) wearing the jacket he is holding in his left arm in the video above: Image
(PS) As you can see, not only do the face and jacket match, but also the red undershirt.
Read 5 tweets
12 Jan
(1 of 2) Paul Manafort—a longtime associate of Howard Liebengood Sr.—is an exec at Event Strategies, which planned the 1/6 rally that ended with a breach of security at the Capitol, where Howard Liebengood Jr. worked security (USCP). 2 days later Liebengood Jr. committed suicide.
(2 of 2) I believe this is a coincidence. That said, because I don't think Manafort aiding and abetting a rally that ended in insurrection is coincidence, I have to assume that—out of an abundance of caution—law enforcement will investigate any possible Manafort-Liebengood link.
(PS) It is vital that no one presume connections where there may be none. My point is that as a criminal investigative matter, Manafort will be investigated for any role he had in the Save America March, and Liebengood's suicide would naturally be investigated due to its context.
Read 15 tweets
12 Jan
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.
Read 15 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!