Trump never encouraged anyone to act violently or to breach the capitol.
The January 6 rally was already scheduled before Trump ever mentioned it or planned to speak.
So you can’t blame the existence of the rally on Trump. 2/
At best you can say more people came because of Trump.
But which additional people came isn’t insignificant to McCarthy’s argument.
If you came to hear Trump speak, you were likely across the plaza when the capitol was breached. 3/
Would the people who breached the capitol done it even if Trump didn’t speak publicly that day?
Well given the reporting about the preplanning, it seems the answer is yes. 4/
Moreover, McCarthy’s contention seems to imply that Trump’s “guilt” is dependent on whether a distant party did or did not hit an officer on the head with a fire extinguisher without even needing to prove who did it or what their actual specific motivation was in doing it. 5/
For example, what if an officer arrested the friend of a protestor. And what if that protestor was there to counter Trump loyalists. And what if that person did hit the officer but did it in an attempt to free their friend.
Why would this influence Trump’s culpability? 6/
The fact is that McCarthy is motivated to blame Trump for the same reasons that Democrats are motivated to blame Trump.
He doesn’t like Trump. 7/
But he’s now cloaking himself in the idea that the possible misreporting of the cause of Sicknick’s death explains his attempt to reject Trump from further participation in our political system.
It’s a transparent attempt to back away from a terrible overreaction. 8/
As a prosecutor you would think McCarthy would know not to be swept up in the emotions of a tragic event but instead to seek facts first.
The truth is that the direct cause of Sicknick’s death doesn’t actually change the calculus of guilt in an impeachment trial. /end
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
At the end I will ask this question: Given the current election laws and the changes implemented in 2020, how could you differentiate the two after the fact?
2/ Scenario 1
A completely above board election conducted during a pandemic where everyone involved’s primary objective was to produce an accurate result.
In person voting was handled properly. Mail in voting was done 100% by the books.
3/ Miraculously voters took their responsibilities seriously and filled out the envelopes immaculately leading to a reduction in the rejection rate from 6% to .1%.
After stripping the ballot from the envelopes they were run through the machines and results were tabulated.
1/ Democrats were allowed free reign to rally their base and the general public to the deranged idea that Trump was a pawn of Vladimir Putin and even when Mueller said there was no evidence of collusion they kept going with zero penalty.
2/ Just consider the analogous situation where we claimed there was fraud in Philadelphia and the system assigned a special counsel with an unlimited budget and unlimited investigative powers and after two years produced a report saying no evidence of fraud but we kept going.
3/ Let’s be clear, Trump never “proved” fraud. But Trump had no power to investigate. Giuliani never had subpoena power. He could never execute a warrant. Philadelphia was never asked by a court to produce evidence. So “proving” fraud was systemically impossible.
This is only going to get worse for the establishment.
The “insurrection” farce will become more and more obvious to more and more people as time goes on.
The heavy handed way they are criminalizing protest when they justified it all summer will only further anger people. 1/5
Whether people are allowed to express this in public or are forced to repress their views and feelings, people know that the outcome in 2020 was manipulated.
Their desire to correct for 2020 will continue to grow. 2/5
Their first bite at the apple?
Republicans in primaries throughout the country.
But for this to work the people need a pide piper. An organizer. A fund raiser.
And a well rested Trump will happily fill that role. 3/5
Here’s my question @SenTomCotton, if the Congress’s role is simply to rubber stamp the state certified electoral college then why include in the Constitution a mechanism, specific to the election of a President, that includes the ability to object to state certified electors? 1/
Why not include, in the Constitution or the 12 Amendment or the Electoral Count Act, a simple phrase that says if certified the electors must be counted? 2/
Instead what is in the Constitution, 12A and ECA are phrases that acknowledge there could be various submissions, that the VP has a role in deciding which to count and the Congress has a role in potentially objecting to the VP’s decision. 3/
1/ My sister wrote the words below today in memory of our mother. Her birthday was January 1, 1944. We would always watch the ball drop and then call to wish her a happy birthday.
Happy birthday, Mom. Miss you.
2/ “Happy birthday in heaven, mom! Today would have been your 77th birthday. It’s been a hard three months without your beautiful face smiling back at us, your arms open wide receiving us and your heart pouring sweet love out over us.”
3/ “This is when you realize it’s never enough time and there were more things we wished to have squeezed into our years together. We look forward to our eternal homecoming knowing one day we’ll see and be with you again for the rest of our days.”