THREAD. A quick recap of what the evidence presented by the House Managers have shown, and what a (real) defense would have to address to rebut it:

2. First, CAUSATION. The House lawyers demonstrated the causal link between Trump’s words and actions and the violence that resulted. To wit: lies beginning months before election about it being rigged, to foment anger; insurrectionists saying they were acting on Trump’s words;

3. and (this was key) active participation and involvement by Trump and WH with groups already known to engage in violent activity for January 6 event, including the change in plan to have a March from Ellipse to Capitol right as votes were starting

4. Next, INTENT: The House detailed Trump’s escalating activity to maintain his hold on power; his repeated language evoking violence; his approval and endorsement of violence from his followers; his knowledge of how violent these people were and their online plans for 1/6; and

5. and *importantly* his inaction AFTER the violence had begun, by refusing to disavow the actions of his followers or tell them to stop, even as people inside the Capitol were begging him to do so. Called his followers “special” and told them he “loved” them

6. Finally, HARM. This is self-evident, but the videos show destruction of property, physical assaults on law enforcement, members of Congress and the VP within minutes of potential assaults or attempts in their lives. Also shown were the rejuvenation of right-wing extremists

7. who continue to pose a threat to the country because they feel emboldened and “backed” by Trump.

8. The defense has hung their hats on two legal arguments. One is jurisdiction, which they lost last Tuesday. It’s done, can’t relitigate. The other is a First Amendment claim, which was legally dismantled yesterday. But this is one that they will likely emphasize

9. Beyond the 1A argument, though, it will be interesting to see whether they contest, with any compelling evidence, the facts proving causation, intent, and harm. It is hard to see what they can marshal against the House overwhelming argument on these points. END