So Schumer should (I hope is) asking Mitch for agreement that the insurgents are stripped of committee positions, w/o replacements for the GOP (as a way to incent GOP to replace them).
After Trump lost, by a lot, that left Mitch the senior elected Republican, though not the leader of the party. He made real requests of Trump (overtly, and I assume privately) not to fuck over the party--and the potentially minority position--he was stuck with.
Mitch asked Trump not to torpedo GOP unity by undermining the vote.
Mitch, as senior-most elected official surely believed Trump could do that. Not only DIDN'T Trump do that, but he lost the GOP the GA run-off. [Yay!]
Then Trump almost got Mitch killed.
Mitch is not only a vindictive bastard, but he's also someone who got his gavel taken away by Trump stupidity (I'm sure he assumes). And he'd like to have his old corporatist, manageable party back.
BC I fucked up the thread and left off one person, this is who I think Dems should ask the GOP to not get committee assignments bc they're seditionists: Mo Brooks, Paul Gosar, Andy Biggs, Boebert, Taylor Greene, Madison Cawthorn, Ted Cruz, Josh Hawley, Tommy Tuberville.
Put it this way: I don't believe in unity with insurgents.
I do see opportunity for Dems to take out the worst GOP shitholes for them, in a bid to move close to a working Congress.
Unity!
UNITY!!!
Democrats: Please don't be literalists with the way that McConnell is taking Trump out. This is what three very skilled negotiators who hate Trump--Pelosi, Schumer, and Mitch--have presumably been dancing towards with their delay.
Yes! He's an epic shithole!
Yes! He's also less dangerous to the nation than Trump AND someone you can make deals with!!
Again: Democrats are doing the institutionalist GOP a favor by taking out Trumpism. (And Dems should insist on bleeding him to the last oversight hearing ahead.)
Please do not fool yourself that this is a meeting of the minds.
I'm guessing that Liz Cheney, protector of the Old Republican way, will be wiling to give this same testimony, pursuant to a subpoena, in a trial. Anyone's trial.
And fuck me, but Liz [BabyDick, bc I can use this term until she casts this vote] Cheney becomes the moral leader of the party.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
This piece from @JameelJaffer makes a number of outright errors in his argument that the case against Assange is dangerous. The case IS dangerous. So is misrepresenting the facts in Assange's defense.
@JameelJaffer Key to the problem--one fostered by propaganda Assange used in his extradition hearing--is the suggestion that Assange was charged BECAUSE the Trump admin made decisions Obama wouldn't. Nope. The public records shows that Obama Admin ALSO had a changed understanding of him.
@JameelJaffer Baraister's ruling on the 3 publication charges is likewise dangerous (tho unsurprising given the law and UK's Official Secrets Act). But the rest of her ruling clearly distinguished what Assange did from what journalists do.
As noted, when Collins texted the WH for help, Trump only encouraged the insurgents. She uses the term, incitement, that is the article of impeachment.
It's really amazing when you realize that the better part of thousands of insurgents who stormed the Capitol have no fucking clue how FBI investigations work and how much evidence they left out there.
Imagine videos with the detail and scope of the one @igorbobic took, but from each of, say, 750 cameras in Congress, matched to micro cell sites, matched to your own idiotic social media posts.
And that's before they get a warrant on your inadequately deleted phone.
Lots of people are talking about the dual exploitation of Parler, one via scrape, one via hack.
Given how the deplatforming worked over a few days, FBI had time to ask, say, Amazon, to mirror the whole thing so they can come back with individualized warrants.