I wrote weeks ago that House managers would have to be prepared to establish links between Trump's team and the Proud Boys, Oath Keepers, and Three Percenters or else lines of argument like these by Trump would go unresponded to
Mind you, his argument fails for other reasons too
Mind you, his argument fails for other reasons too
https://twitter.com/maggieNYT/status/1356734484205477888
(PS) People have to remember that it's not just the *facts* included in a defense, but what picture you are painting with that defense. What Trump is implying here is that the insurrection would have happened even if he had never spoken. That's outrageously false and he knows it.
(PS2) Unfortunately, many don't understand what a complete defense looks or sounds like because they've never watched a trial start to finish. So some will think that evidence certain Trump supporters wanted to breach the Capitol before Trump spoke is an actual defense. It's not.
(PS3) And it's *especially* not a defense—let alone a complete defense—when Trump's political and legal teams were in contact pre-January 6 with the *very people* that Trump is now saying had plans to breach the Capitol that had nothing to do with him or anything he said.
(PS4) And I say all this putting *aside* for the moment the fact that the overwhelming majority of people who breached the Capitol *did* hear Trump speak and did hear/see his pre-January 6 statements urging people to come to Washington.
Heck, many arrestees *told the feds* that.
Heck, many arrestees *told the feds* that.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
