Seeing a lot of people assuming that the Trump "National Healing" speech and the EO seizing voting machines were part of the same plot, but it's the opposite. They were artifacts of two competing proposals within the administration. politico.com/news/2022/01/2…
The Executive Order was part of a planned strategy of escalation of the attempt to steal the election. It would have set the wheels in motion for an official process to discredit and repudiate Biden's victory.
But the "Remarks on National Healing" weren't part of that attempt to steal the election. Instead, if you read the speech, you can see it was drafted as part of a plan under which Trump would have repudiated the January 6 attack and conceded the election.
In the "National Healing" draft, Trump would have said "The election fight is over. A new administration will be inaugurated on January 20th. My focus now turns to ensuring a smooth, orderly and seamless transition of power. This moment calls for healing and reconciliation."
But of course Trump never said anything like that, and there's no evidence he ever seriously contemplated it.
In the "National Healing" draft Trump was to have said he called out the National Guard to stop the attack on the Capitol. Weirdly, Politico calls that phrasing a "claim" that "may be false." But it's not false—it's describing an action that Trump refused to take.
The headlines on this story are seriously misleading, and phrasing like the above doesn't help things. But the EO and the draft speech were prepared by competing factions in the White House. That's entirely clear from the texts.
It'd be interesting to know who wrote each one, and at whose direction.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
