Biden saying that Rs “beat the living hell out of us” in downballot races across the country is significant, because (1) he said it to an audience that didn’t really want to hear it and https://t.co/FM7OwUgWYH 1/8

(2) because he wouldn’t have said it unless it was based on conclusive internal polling. 2/8

It is also encouraging if it *is* the correct analysis of Ds’ disappointing-- even calamitous--electoral outcomes in downballot races.

It is encouraging because it is easily remediable with better messaging. 3/8

In fact, Biden made it clear during the election that he did not favor actually defunding the police: that he only favored reforming the police, and specified policies to do that. But he didn’t say it loud enough, and downballot D politicians didn’t either. 4/8

(The R messaging over “defunding the police” seems to have worked to protect R politicians in downballot races, but wasn’t enough to get Trump himself reelected over the repugnance Ds and Independents felt for him.) 5/8

The most important remaining nomination for Biden to announce is the most important one he will ever make: for Attorney General of the United States. 1/8

If Biden nominates Sally Yates, it will be a pretty clear signal that the D voices who believe that Trump and his enablers must be held accountable for a uniquely lawless presidency have carried the day. 2/8

Since I’m hoping Biden will nominate Yates, it is encouraging that Biden has waited so long to announce his selection for AG. (It is going to come now after the Electoral College formalizes Biden’s election on Monday.) 3/8

(Trump’s outrageous attempt to overturn the 2020 election--“overturn” being a term Trump actually used in a tweet--has probably made it more likely that Biden will take a hard line on all this. He certainly should.) 4/8

If Yates is nominated, the writing will be clearly on the wall for Trump, who in its wake would probably make a deal with Pence involving his resignation some time before inauguration day and a pardon for all his federal crimes. 5/8

There were at least two insurrectionist plans that day.

As I’ve written previously, one of the plans was simply to either take Pence hostage or to assassinate him. 1/28

That was the more extreme plot, and it is an interesting question whether and to what extent Trump, Giuliani, some WH aides, and some nationalist insurrection members of Congress knew of the plan and either facilitated it or condoned it. 2/28

But there was another plan, less violent and extreme, but equally seditious, which we know was supported by a number of extremist members of Congress. It was also the plan that Trump and his personal lawyer Rudy Giuliani publicly espoused. 3/28

That plan was simply to ensure somehow, by force or by intimidation, that the certification of the election by Congress failed or fell short on January 6--the constitutionally mandated date for the final and determinative certification of the election. 4/28

The principal target here was VP MIke Pence. Pence had already announced publicly that he would not throw the election in the way that Trump had demanded because he lacked the statutory and constitutional authority to do so (which was, of course, perfectly true). 5/28

The evidence is mounting that what we witnessed yesterday was an attempted coup (related terms are “insurrection” and “sedition”). 1/10

But it is important to note that the bad actors involved in the events can be sent to jail (for up to twenty years) for something that falls short of an attempted coup and is easier to prove in court: obstruction of justice. 2/10

The relevant federal statute is 18 U.S.C. § 1512--a statute, you might recall, that figures prominently in the Mueller Report. 3/10

Bill Barr, who wanted to construe the statute narrowly, contested Mueller’s interpretation of the statute. There is a lengthy reply to Barr’s construction (which I think might have been written by Michael Dreeben) in the Report. 4/10

The Report establishes conclusively that Barr’s interpretation violates every known principle of statutory construction, and it is fun to read the Report and see Barr get *destroyed* on this point. 5/10

As I have pointed out in a previous posting, many of the rioters found to their dismay and bewilderment that there was no plan, at least that they could discern, for the mob to carry out that day. 1/63

The only thing they knew is that there had been a call to action--and to a large extent to arms as well--to disrupt the certification of Biden’s electoral college win. 2/63

According to Ali Alexander (formerly known as Ali Akbar) the idea was to show up so angry and in such overwhelming numbers that it would “change the hearts and the minds of Republicans who were in that body, hearing our loud roar from outside.” 3/63

(In fact, there is mounting evidence that Ali and other organizers of the event intended for the rioters to get INSIDE the fenced-in perimeter and even the building itself, which would in themselves have been unlawful actions--but that is a subject for another thread.) 4/63

Ali’s description might well fit the motives of many in the mob that assembled on January 6. But the more interesting and important question is: What did Trump and the activists and event organizers expect (or a least hope) that the *members of Congress* would do that day? 5/63