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
That is relevant and important here because under the terms of the statute (construed as it must be), the plotters and actors in the assault on the Capitol yesterday committed OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE, 6/10
because it is abundantly clear that the purpose of the assault was to disrupt, delay, and otherwise prevent the certification of the Electoral College ballots by Congress. Anyone intending to accomplish that can be charged and convicted for up to 20 years in prison. 7/10
Prosecutors shouldn’t have any difficulty showing that Giuliani (probably with the full awareness of Trump, which would make him an accessory to the crime) and bad actors in the Capitol Police and House “Freedom” Caucus are legally liable under the OOJ statute. 8/10
Here is the statute in relevant part: 9/10
Immediately prosecute, impeach, and remove under 18 U.S.C. § 1512, where the violation is easier to prove. Prosecuting all the plotters and actors for an attempted coup is also essential, but it can come later. 10/10

More from Thomas Wood 🌊

It was a foregone conclusion that Trump would lose the TX case, but why did he say “This is the big one?” 1/9


Because the TX case rested on the proposition that a national election can be nullified and “overturned” (a term Trump actually used in a tweet) on the grounds that it does not satisfy conditions determined by the incumbent president 2/9

and the states governed by that president’s political party--
(e..g., no votes by voters receiving mail-in ballots who do not request those ballots shall be deemed legitimate.) 3/9

This litigation was intended to nullify all the votes in all 50 states, and would have called for a new election. It challenged election procedures, not just election results. And it did not require any proof of fraud or undercounts or overcounts. 4/9

In other words, no national election can be legitimate that fails to reelect the incumbent president--in this case of course, Donald J. Trump, the Supreme Leader of the *real* America. 5/9

More from For later read

There is some valuable analysis in this report, but on the defense front this report is deeply flawed. There are other sections of value in report but, candidly, I don't think it helps us think through critical question of Taiwan defense issues in clear & well-grounded way. 1/


Normally as it might seem churlish to be so critical, but @cfr is so high-profile & the co-authors so distinguished I think it’s key to be clear. If not, people - including in Beijing - could get the wrong idea & this report could do real harm if influential on defense issues. 2/

BLUF: The defense discussion in this report does not engage at the depth needed to add to this critical debate. Accordingly conclusions in report are ill-founded - & in key parts harmful/misleading, esp that US shldnt be prepared defend Taiwan directly (alongside own efforts). 3/

The root of the problem is that report doesn't engage w the real debate on TWN defense issues or, frankly, the facts as knowable in public. Perhaps the most direct proof of this: The citations. There is nothing in the citations to @DeptofDefense China Military Power Report...4/

Nor to vast majority of leading informed sources on this like Ochmanek, the @RANDCorporation Scorecard, @CNAS, etc. This is esp salient b/c co-authors by their own admission have v little insight into contemporary military issues. & both last served in govt in Bush 43. 5/

You May Also Like

This is a pretty valiant attempt to defend the "Feminist Glaciology" article, which says conventional wisdom is wrong, and this is a solid piece of scholarship. I'll beg to differ, because I think Jeffery, here, is confusing scholarship with "saying things that seem right".


The article is, at heart, deeply weird, even essentialist. Here, for example, is the claim that proposing climate engineering is a "man" thing. Also a "man" thing: attempting to get distance from a topic, approaching it in a disinterested fashion.


Also a "man" thing—physical courage. (I guess, not quite: physical courage "co-constitutes" masculinist glaciology along with nationalism and colonialism.)


There's criticism of a New York Times article that talks about glaciology adventures, which makes a similar point.


At the heart of this chunk is the claim that glaciology excludes women because of a narrative of scientific objectivity and physical adventure. This is a strong claim! It's not enough to say, hey, sure, sounds good. Is it true?