Thread by @TimInHonolulu

1. This is like a tough bar question on the Hearsay Rule.

If the people who were relaying the facts to #45 were all part of the conspiracy then it comes in as statement of a co-conspirator and not hearsay under the Federal rules. I would look for notes of a regular activity.

2. But I think she heard #45 say allow the weapons in because he believe they were not there to harm him. That is an admission of a party and not hearsay. I have an image of Merrick Garland eating popcorn.

3. One witness would be sufficient to prove the elements of Seditious Conspiracy, Advocating Overthrow and Incitement of Insurrection but to charge him with Levying War Treason, a capital crime, the Govt needs two witnesses for each element.

4. Any lawyer currently representing Trump may have just punched their ticket. Clear evidence of a crime that the defendant is still publicly engaged in committing is deadly for any attorney who will likely be put in the grand jury with the privilege waived.

5. I think they have Incitement probable cause. The question is whether it's simply inciting a riot or inciting insurrection. I think it's likely both.

6. McCarthy withheld that call from the public. This could be a career ending event for McCarthy. He has to stay close to Trump but now has to denounce him or just lie and end up in a grand jury to do it. Kobayashi Maru.

7. #45 after the speech. Engel and Orinato. What happened in the Beast. President wanted to go to the Capitol. #45 got irate. "I'm the f-ing president take me up to the Capitol now!" Tried to grab the steering wheel. Then lunged at Bobby Engel.

8. I'm still not hearing anything that sounds like an agreement to violence. It's a lot of inferences but not something that says "I want violence." But Sedious Conspiracy only requires force so it may be enough to charge him for that.

9. ". . .or by force to seize, take, or possess any property of the United States contrary to the authority thereo. . ."

#45 throws a tantrum and his plate. He'd done it before. Portrait of a madman.

10. I want to know if she has spoken to the @FBIWFO or possibly a grand jury. I would think she may have. If she has competent counsel then I would expect them to bring this to the @FBIWFO ASAP.

11. There is a clear inference that #45 intended to harm the Congress and others knowing that the mob was with him not against him. They need to tee Meadows up for life without parole and make him a deal he can't refuse. I would expect others like Engel and Ornato would be able

12. to provide testimony that #45 advocated violence. On Cipollone, I don't think he will ever talk. IMO he's like Manafort: The son of a made man.

13. #45s statement does not deny the testimony is accurate other than attacking Hutchinson's character generally but that is rebutted by the fact that he didn't get rid of her. But no specific denial. Any attorney representing him on the crimes should be horrified.

14. Meadows is the key IMO. Stone and Flynn enter the stage. "War Room" on the 5th. Meadows said he would move to the Willard. Work it with Secret Service. She said not smart to go to the Willard. Dials in.

15. Flynn takes the 5th on the attack, moral, legal, justified.
NB With all the comments about Meadow on his phone, occurs to to me that nitwits Clark and Easton may have both kept their same phone used in the coup attempt that will show what #45 had said about the violence.

16. Hang Mike Pence: Pat Cipollone and Meadows just arguably gave the DOJ attempted murder of the VP or conspiracy to murder the VP. That's the agreement to violence that is needed to charge #45. Now they just need to get Cipollone to confirm it. With the recent departures at

17. K&E I think they may already have it and Cipollone may have appeared in the grand jury and they ditched the Paul Clement Koch network team so that the knowledge of their client engaged in criminal conduct using the firm would not infect the entire firm.

18. Pondering the urgency of the hearing. Perhaps the DOJ has all of this and may have already returned an indictment so they could share it with the Committee under Rule 6(e). 🤞

19. The evidence of #45 threatening witnesses makes it close to impossible for Garland to not charge him and because somebody could be murdered it likely means he'll do it soon. Or perhaps he already did.