Read on Twitter
a few points about the House brief:
1. From the argument heading (referring to when other attempts to overturn the election failed), they are telegraphing that they will make his overall course of conduct, beginning with the late Dec exhortation to come to DC, gonna be "wild."
1. From the argument heading (referring to when other attempts to overturn the election failed), they are telegraphing that they will make his overall course of conduct, beginning with the late Dec exhortation to come to DC, gonna be "wild."
2. They assert that they can prove the charge based on “reasonable foreseeability,” without regard to whether Trump defense claims that he didn’t intend for it to happen. They write, “it was obvious and entirely foreseeable that the furious crowd...was primed for violence."
3. This is plainly a fact; everyone saw it and the Senate lived it. It is therefore simply true that he “incited an insurrection." No special intent is required. But it’s clearly not true that he didn’t intend it. Next to the video tape itself, perhaps the most important
evidence will be his reaction in the couple hours following the televising of the storming. An official who had unintentionally let loose these insurrectionary forces would be horrified and try to tamp it down immed.Trump, by contrast, did 0, and witnesses say he was "delighted."
On the constitutional argument, they will contend that the issue is settled by previous Senates. That’s fully accurate, and consistent with how we settle these issues,which are committed by the constitution to the Senate itself. Also try to denigrate the arg as a process” objec.
