Thread by @FreedomFriesInc

(1) Oh great. More remarks that will only fuel more division. Yeah yeah I know various people are gonna unfollow, block or say mean words to me for trying to assess this speech objectively.

You think I care about that rn? You don't know me at all. Start with my pinned tweet.

https://twitter.com/disclosetv/status/1349493689576550400

(2) From 2015, Trump's opponents exaggerated his flaws, made stuff up, & refused to see the good things he often did.

Part of the effect was to make his supporters dig in deeper to defend him. There was willful blindness.

Opponents should be glad eyes are opening up. But, no.

(3) People on both sides allow "emotional reasoning" (in quotes because it isn't reasoning at all) to invade the space in their mind where logical reasoning and basic empathy should be in charge.

My empathy never wavered but I did let emotion go too far.

That said,

(4) I'm here to offer help to those who want it. If you're entrenched on either side, we probably won't get on.

People have a range of positions right now, and many are finding that our views change a little more each day. I become clearer in my understanding of past & present.

(5) Trump's address today can be taken at face value, or in context. I choose the latter.

I saw in December that he was promoting a mass gathering to stand outside the Capitol during the Joint Session to certify the EC votes per the Constitution. His intent was clear.

(6) He supported the idea of a very large crowd being present as a way to send a message to those inside.

Others, such as Ali Alexander (who is linked to Trump, that cannot be denied) said multiple times on record that the crowd would be used to try to intimidate Congress.

(7) Verbatim quotes by Ali Alexander and many others can be found online. Over a period of months, dozens of public figures in the Trump movement spoke or wrote about "fighting" for Trump, usually without any kind of caveat placing limits on the term.

Trump never addressed it.

(8) I noticed Trump's comments about it in Dec, and spoke up directly, on Twitter. I got a lot of backlash, but I didn't care.

Then last night I remembered doing the same throughout 2020 & maybe even 2019, too.

I said they will try to steal, so we must fight back lawfully.

(9) I've written so many threads covering domestic terrorism & other crimes & negligence that I can't remember them all.

Anyone who knows me should know by now what my views are. Zero tolerance. No excuses.

A sitting POTUS must meet an even higher standard than the public.

(10) Since 1/6 I've noticed a set of excuses being used by Trump supporters from public figures to people who spend little time on Twitter or following politics.

I've disproven all these excuses, over and over.

There are many people reaching the same conclusions as me.

(11) Now, 3 quotes from the address.

"I have been briefed by the US Secret Service on the potential threats."

It's the job of a POTUS to be briefed on that every morning. I assume they were able to on the morning of 1/6/21. Their protectee the VP would be at the Capitol.

(12) Without knowing who did or said what at what time that day, it's possible to infer several things.

>Trump's duty required him to enquire about overall security plans at the Capitol. I think it was possible for him to learn that they were woefully inadequate.

(13) Maybe they misled him? It's theoretically possible, & if true then they must be prosecuted. But I think it's very unlikely.

If he knew the Capitol would not be secure enough, he had the power to change that. Even though not all the agencies were under him as CiC and POTUS.

(14) The other thing he could have done at that point was prepare to amend his draft speech for the rally at the Ellipse.

He casually referred to the protesters walking to the Capitol. With no significant additions about non-violence & the rule of law.

Plenty of those today.

(15) There's a lot more I could say on each point but I'm trying to be concise.

"But I can not emphasize [enough] that there must be no violence."

Did you notice the word that was missing? Listen to it again.

Normally, wouldn't matter.

(16) The address was pre-recorded. I noticed the missing word the first time I heard it. Was no one at the WH able to pick up the mistake & have him repeat the address? Or did he know, & say let's run with the first take of it.

The Qanons will read into it. They always do.

(17) But wait, there's more. The Qanons will read into this too:

"...to ensure that a transition can occur safely... "

It's been public knowledge since the pre-recorded address on 1/7/21, that the Qanons & other misguided individuals believe "a transition" means "not Biden."

(18) They genuinely believe that all these events are part of "the storm" and that Trump is going to make everything better, just in the nick of time.

Ashli Babbitt believed this. You can read about it at her Twitter account (if it's still visible - I took screenshots in case.)

(18) According to a range of evidence I've seen, all three of the Trump supporters who died from "medical events" outside the Capitol also held extreme views like those fostered in the Qanon movement. I think most of the crowd outside did too.

Most Trump supporters stayed home.

(19) Most Trump supporters find Qanons an irritant & certainly not good for the MAGA agenda.

I could see in December that a "perfect storm" leading to violence on 1/6 was brewing. Many others saw this too.

A lot of Trump supporters still say the violence was led by the left.

(20) Guys, it wasn't. No matter how many genuine leftists you find that were posing as Trump supporters unlawfully in the Capitol that day, it doesn't excuse the Trump supporters who did the same things.

A fact is still a fact even when it's uncomfortable to face.

(21) So, yeah. The President is still allowing little tiny things in his speeches and statements to throw a bone to the victims of scam artists. The question is: Why?

I don't know and I don't expect to know until the investigations have progressed more.

(22) Here's just one example of Qanonsense, from a few minutes ago (I'm in the NZT time zone. They try to claim I have special pre-knowledge about events.)

There are the scam victims, then there are the fake accounts stringing them along:

(23) As well as the above points, this Presidential address was hard to watch. Because of the context, that I mentioned earlier.

POTUS made several sets of remarks in public over the past week. At no time has he taken responsibility for even some of his actions or omissions.

(24) Yes it's great that he is urging his supporters to be law abiding. Now. He's very skilled, I'll give him that.

A large number of Americans would have been angered by the timing of his remarks. If you really want peace, this wasn't a good way to seek it.

(25) I can predict some of what will likely happen on or around Inauguration Day.

Qanons and their fellow travelers will grab onto things like where Trump is at any given time, whether and what type of aircraft he's on or are in the air nearby, and anything he says or does.

(26) As I've done many times, I urge you to consider if anyone in your family or other irl contacts might be inclined to get carried away with this stuff. Obviously, I think reporting folk to police is unhelpful, unless you have a sound reason for doing so. You'll have to decide.

(27) When a terrorist attack or other violent crime has occurred, whether people died or not, it's too late to say gee I thought Uncle Bill was a bit weird with all the radio gear and bumper stickers and harsh words at Thanksgiving.

(28) One of the dangers is that the number of people who feel they have nothing to lose is increasing.

Ashli Babbitt felt she had nothing to lose. Over time we will find out exactly what happened after she was mortally wounded. Was the sound of gunfire enough to quell the riot?

(29) If the USCP had been PROPERLY prepared for the likely riot, there would have been enough inter-agency (incl. federal) personnel & equipment to hold the line around the building. If breached, enough effective & "less lethal" options would have been available to protect lives.

(30) I'm pretty sure the inter-agency personnel (incl. 20,000 National Guard) will be sufficient to protect everyone attending the Inauguration of Biden* & Harris*. All state capitols are also being properly protected.

But we don't know if foreign regimes are planning stuff.

(31) Modern terrorism is so high tech now that our military and LE agencies will have prepared for a range of potential threat types. Hopefully the day and those around it will go so well that it will appear to us like the preparations weren't needed. Pray for our protectors.

(32) Even though the smart among us will stay away from DC and the state capitols (unless officially involved), an attack on federal property is an attack on us; the law abiding.

Even when a political opponent won power unlawfully, it's still "our" property. Our safety at risk.

(33) I don't mean "our" property in the sense that a US citizen is entitled to enter a federal building at any given time.

I mean that when a building is part of the lawful government, the government has a right to protect it. This is something we all used to agree on, right?

(34) Government has a right to protects its buildings. But it also has a DUTY to.

Those who had the power to order sufficient protection of the Capitol on 1/6, failed in their duty to you, as an American.

The consequences make you less safe from harm AND from tyranny.

(35) This is why I spoke up in December to say that a large crowd outside the Capitol on 1/6 was not in the interests of any American. The probability of a small number trying to breach the building was sky high. So was the probability of the left exaggerating MAGA involvement.

(36) It has turned into a slow moving disaster for everyone, especially for the law-abiding majority of conservatives and Trump supporters.

Trump's comments and non-comments have worsened the situation, especially for this group.

I doubt he's going to change any time soon.

(37) Adding this bc it covers an issue I raised in Dec.

IDC which side you're on, if you enable your political activities to be linked to your workplace you're taking a big risk & only have yourself to blame.

If LEO or military, I want you charged.

https://twitter.com/Reuters/status/1349742191338545152

(38) Since there's never enough space in a tweet: If u r LE or mil, chose to be identifiable & broke the law by crossing Police lines on 1/6, then IMO u r not only a dumbass, you shd be prosecuted to the fullest extent.

Peaceful protest is different.

nydailynews.com/news/politics/…

(39) In b4 the dumbass chorus chimes in: I support prosecution for breaking the law by entering the building at that time & not leaving when given a lawful command to do so. Everyone who did, contributed to the event being a terrorist attack.

It's in the hands of the court now.

(40) The government has a right to charge people and there is a very strong public expectation of prosecutions. It's then up to the court to decide if the allegations are true, then what action it wants to take.

The more minor law breakers will have a chance to explain.

(41) If the courts are unduly excessive concerning the minor law breakers then, like everyone, they can appeal.

If they didn't realize the risks they took then how is that my problem? I specifically identified this risk before 1/6. Obv. my audience is small but I wasn't alone.

(42) It's far better to be prosecuted for "knowingly entering or remaining in a restricted area without lawful authority" than ending up dead that day.

I do realize that an American has far greater civil rights than I do in my country. This was not the day to take up arms.