Skimming the Jack Smith filing, seems that Ken Chesebro (CC5 here, p. 53) was openly telling people his fake elector plan was a gambit to let Congressmen make false claims disputing the election. He seems to be clearly aware the votes were illegal. Not a good look. 1/
On p. 58: again, Chesebro knew the fake electoral votes were just a "pretext" for a fake fight to deny Biden the presidency. Interestingly, the same para says Trump was in "almost daily" contact with someone whose podcast spread the false claims - who? 2/ storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.usco…
On p. 59 we learn that Trump spoke directly and privately to Ken Chesebro (CC5), and that someone else closely involved (CC6) warned Chesebro to not talk about the plan in chat groups and to text about the fake electors to just a few people. They knew it was illegal. 3/
On p. 60 we learn about a Dec. 23 memo Chesebro helped draft, not previously reported, that told Pence what to do: to simply declare Donald Trump the winner of the election based on the presence of two competing sets of electoral votes. A written plan to steal the election. 4/
Here's the timeframe of the election-stealing memo. It was Plan B - Chesebro's Plan A was still the Supreme Court: "the odds of action before Jan 6..become more favorable if the Justices start to fear that there will be, quote, "wild" chaos on Jan 6.." 5/ docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d…
By early Jan, as militias bought their tickets to DC, multiple plans were still in play. Chesebro says so on Jan 1: that he sees "two tracks" for delaying certification. To him, the prospect of violence would soften up the Supreme Court. But the violence became the plan. 6/
We knew already that Trump called Pence on Christmas - Dec. 25 - and pressured him to just declare Trump the winner. We didn't know, til today, that Chesebro outlined this plan in a text message that same day. It is really, really not looking good for Chesebro. 7/
Also looking VERY bad for Trump. If you should ever want to pressure a vice president to appoint you president (threatening him with a mob of "hundreds of thousands"), it is best to not tell him "You're too honest". Because that shows you know what you're asking is illegal. 8/
Fun fact: this filing confirms the identity of CC6: it's Boris Epshteyn. Why? Because on Jan 2, co-conspirators 1, 2, and 6 appeared on P1's podcast, i.e. Steve Bannon's War Room. His title that day: "New Year, Old Fights: w/ Rudy Giuliani, Boris Epshteyn, and John Eastman". 9/
Here's a clip of Steve Bannon talking to CC6 on Jan 2, 2021: "..the most important vote you will have, ever. That is about these electors, about the Biden slate versus the Trump slate in these six states... We're going to start with Boris Epshteyn from the campaign..." 10/
To summarize the redacted people in the indictment and Jack Smith's filing, known so far are "Person-1" and "co-conspirators 1-6":
P1 Bannon
CC1 Giuliani
CC2 Eastman
CC3 Sidney Powell
CC4 Jeffrey Clark
CC5 Chesebro
CC6 Epshteyn
(h/t @jamiedupree for confirming CC2-4)
11/
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Our new Navy Director of Communications watched the action at the Capitol on Jan 6 for Breitbart News. Her worst post might be this one: she flippantly captioned a video of people attacking the North Doors: "Things got a lil sporty here". To her it was a joke. Video tk. 1/
Here's Wong's video of the attack on the North Doors. She can claim she was just a reporter, but her caption shows that she thinks an attack on our Capitol and officers is funny. @SECNAV: is this the message you want to send to the troops, who swear to uphold the Constitution? 2/
Actual reporters, not Breitbart hacks, should ask @SecNav John Phelan: why was Kristina Wong picked? Is this the right message to send the US Navy? That attacking our own Capitol to prevent the peaceful transfer of power is just "a lil sporty"? 3/
It's clear by now: we WILL lose US democracy without a civil society pushback. Today the universities finally rose up, bluntly denouncing "undue government intrusion". The coalition is is now top-heavy with establishment heavyweights. Summary follows. 1/ theguardian.com/us-news/2025/a…
Who signed? Let's start with the Ivies. Status-worship is gross, but it matters that they're nearly all leading now:
* Ivy: Harvard, Princeton, Yale, Cornell, Penn, Brown
NOT Columbia, Dartmouth
* Ivy-plus: MIT, Duke
NOT Stanford, Univ. of Chicago
2/
continuing... universities with big research arms:
* Other elite tech:
NOT Caltech, Rice, Georgia Tech
* Big state R1s: Rutgers, U WA, U MD, U WI Madison, U HI, UC Riverside, Stony Brook
NOT U MI, UIUC, other UCs, UT, etc.
3/
When Trump's goons threatened Harvard it was clear what would happen: first PR, then lawyers. Harvard has now filed suit, solo against 8 government agencies. Two main points: 1) government did not follow procedure, 2) government cannot dictate speech. 1/ harvard.edu/research-fundi…
As you'd expect, Harvard has also put out a smooth letter explaining their lawsuit. It starts by outlining the 5 attacks Trump has made on Harvard. Then pivots to defending research. Then thoughts on antisemitism - giving Trump an offramp he could take. 2/ harvard.edu/president/news…
More careful work: Harvard has kept the 2 ultra-Trumpy lawyers originally hired to negotiate, but added 14 more from 2 specialty law firms: Ropes & Gray, experts in life sciences & pharma research, and Lehotsky Keller Cohn, experts in federal regulations. Choose your fighter. 3/
The public needs to learn how Kristi Noem, a cabinet official with Secret Service protection, got her purse snatched with DHS badge, passport, maybe phone: now a security risk. If she'd asked the SS to stand down for privacy, we need to know who was she having dinner with. 1/
Either #1: Noem had an intimate restaurant dinner (on Easter?) she felt was so important she put US security at risk. Or, #2: Noem didn't ask the Secret Service to back off, and our elite agency let a purse-snatcher get within arm's length of a cabinet secretary. Or.. 2/
Or, #3: everyone is lying and something else happened that resulted in Noem losing her badge and passport. We cannot know without more reporting. Reporters should not let this story get lost in the deluge of scandal. It needs follow-up. 3/
The Trump admin now CLAIMS to have made a mistake. Not "acknowledges". Trump's clowns sent a letter signed by 3 government officials, got the predictable response (mighty Harvard swung into battle), tried to amplify and flopped, and so now are whining it's all Harvard's fault. 1/
The NYT article is pretty good. It repeats admin claims, but makes it clear that they're in chaos. They know they messed up and are scrambling. Predictably, Harvard had been negotiating, before that letter - but it sent them into battle. Unpaywalled link: archive.is/YsHpJ
The timeline: as soon as Harvard rolled out their resistance PR on Monday, the Trump admin knew they blew it. Immediately tried to walk it back. Harvard says no. On Wednesday, they escalated the threats. Still no. Now they're down to complaining it's all Harvard's fault. 3/
A new attack on Harvard, another attempt to impose government control. Trump first tried with $: canceling researchers' grants, threatening taxes. Now an attack via visas: to deport ALL Harvard's international students (38% of PhDs doing lab research). 1/ thecrimson.com/article/2025/4…
Trump's demand, again, is a classic from the fascist playbook: to force Harvard to monitor its students and report to the US government. This visa threat can't be countered with money. But Trump is missing one key issue. Many Harvard international undergrads are global elites. 2/
Harvard educates the children of Saudi sheiks and Russian oligarchs and Greek shipping magnates. Deporting the PhD students would cripple Harvard research. Deporting the UGs would alienate powerful people across the world, people whose respect Trump craves. He may not dare. 3/