I wonder if any Republicans understand that an impeachment is the equivalent of an indictment—which is returned by a grand jury without due process for the defendant. Due process comes into this equation at the trial phase. Yet these Republicans speak of due process being denied.
The defendant is not present at a grand jury proceeding. His or her attorney is not present. There is no cross-examination. There is no obligation for the prosecutor to present the defendant's case to the grand jury. The standard is probable cause, not beyond a reasonable doubt.
It's almost like the Republican Party has been demagoguing on the subject of criminal justice for the last 60 years purely as a dog whistle to white supremacists, rather than because they have any understanding whatsoever of how criminal justice is practiced in the United States.
I'd add that Republicans don't even have an interest in the normal operations of a criminal case at the trial phase. When Trump was impeached the first time, the GOP had no interest in witnesses, material evidence or examinations. Everything they're saying now is hypocritical BS.
The case they'd *argue*—if they understood criminal justice—is that there should be more time for investigation pre-indictment. But they *can't make that case*, because neither they nor anyone in America believes it. We have the facts we need already. So they shout "due process."
I've said before and will say again that no one in America discusses criminal justice issues more and understands them less—no one speaks more about the values undergirding the system while having no actual belief in them—than a Republican seeking election at the national level.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Uh...is this a message from Proud Boy James Sullivan on Giuliani's phone, referencing having access to Trump stooge and Giuliani associate Kash Patel at the Pentagon? Because either this is that—in which case it's a smoking gun against the president—or I have no idea what it is.
(PS) Remember, the Proud Boys have already been caught lying to media about whether they were using blaze orange hats and armbands to signal one another during the insurrection. Now it seems that a Proud Boy is using Trump's lawyer to spread disinformation about the insurrection.
(PS2) One possibility: Proud Boy James Sullivan is under investigation by the FBI after the arrest of his fake-leftist Proud Boy brother John, and one/both Sullivans are a) trying to get out of trouble with lies, b) in touch with Kash Patel as to the insurrection. FBI, take note.
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.
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.
(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.
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.
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:
(PS) As you can see, not only do the face and jacket match, but also the red undershirt.