Thread by @AlexandraErin

I've been reading this and they do a good job of laying out the case, including making the case for why they don't need to have an additional investigation process. They're largely relying on a record of events that happened in public - statements, tweets, posts, etc.

https://twitter.com/ThePlumLineGS/status/1349137795613413379

The committee makes the note that previous impeachment proceedings have included an investigation phase but they also note that the Constitution leaves it to the House to determine its own procedures, and in this case they've determined investigation is unnecessary.

It's possible for House members to disagree with what the facts mean, but the facts are assembled in the report, and the committee's conclusion is that they are damning enough.

So I'm heartened that the House Democrats are taking this seriously and compressing the process to the extent that it's under their control to compress, and not shrinking from or denying that they have that power.

Frankly, after the Senate declined to hear testimony last time, I would like to see someone try to take the House to task for not going through the motions of a longer investigation.

There is one nuance that I don't see them touching on in building their case -- and I don't think it's necessary that they do, and in fact it might undermine their argument as it's a little bit more nebulous -- but which I think is important to understanding what's going on.

Now, Lin Wood has repeatedly pointed out that he's calling for Pence to face a firing squad (a judicial sentence), not for Trump supporters to shoot him. Similarly, Ali Alexander's and Trump's defenses of the "Stop The Steal" rally hinges on the idea that they seek legal remedies

But the thing is, to the crowd they're speaking of -- and in Alexander and Wood's case, part of -- "the law" isn't the law, the law is "we're the good guys so what we do is right".

They speak about "arresting" Governor Whitmer or Mike Pence or Nancy Pelosi and they're actually talking about vigilantes kidnapping them. So we're supposed to understand that when these would-be kidnappers talk about executions, they mean anything but murder at their hands?

Even when they're talking about federal law enforcement forces, their idea of rule of law is anything but. They imagine a world where Donald Trump could *secretly* declare martial law or invoke the insurrection act, a world of secret police, secret courts, secret trials, etc.

As the impeachment report makes clear, several of the insurrectionists told cops and livestreams at the time that they were in the capitol because Trump had told them to be there. In their mind, they were authorized to go there and do those things.

Compare to the "poll watchers" who showed up on election night with no training or orientation and just said "President Trump sent me."

He's their dictator; the law is what he dictates.

They believe a "patriot" with zip ties and a gun is a good as any court system (better, since they see the courts as corrupt in their unwillingness to do what Trump says). They believe Trump's word is as good as law or better.

And Trump matches them perfectly insofar as he believed a bunch of armed hooligans tearing through Congress was likely to overturn the results of the election. Why couldn't it? Why wouldn't it? In his world, the weak give way to the strong. That's the only law he recognizes.