THREAD: LIRS is moved by the prospect of an administration that sees immigration as a strength, not a weakness.

Despite challenges, we believe we can advance a sensible, coherent, humane and just immigration system by focusing on the following 10

1) This pic published in the Daily Mail showing debris left after terrorist attack on US Capitol seems relatively unremarkable. But a man in Sweden noticed something: the red scarf at the top with the name of the northern Swedish city of Skellefteå. Then it got interesting.

2) The man contacted his local paper, pointing out the fact that there was a scarf from a northern Swedish city of just 70,000 in the debris of the attack. The paper published the story, with the headline: "What's a Skellefteå scarf doing inside of Congress?"

3) It turns out that, in 2017, the scarf had been offered as a Christmas gift from the city of Skellefteå to people who had moved away from the area. They were told go to a website and order one. A total of 934 people did so, and had received the scarf.

4) Now, natl Swedish media picked up story, wondering if a Swede had participated in the terrorist attack in Washington. Doing a search, the paper Dagens Nyheter found pictures of the man who was wearing the scarf. The first showed him trying to force his way into the Capitol.

5) After breaking through the barriers, the scarf man was later seen toward the front of the mob, waiving an American flag, and no longer wearing his baseball hat...but an official police helmet and visor. Skellefteå scarf still on.

We've been hearing this a lot: the House managers have successfully shown how horrible the January 6 insurrection was and also highlighted Donald Trump's vulgar comments. But they haven't really proven the connection between Trump's comments and the attack. This is nonsense. 1/

There is a criminal case to be made against Trump for his role in inciting the inspiration, and @CREWcrew has made that case in its criminal sedition complaint against Trump. But this is not a criminal case, and does not require that kind of proof.

On a basic level, this case is painfully obvious. Donald Trump spent weeks and months and years saying, falsely, the election would be fraudulent and then that it had been stolen. This primed his supporters to believe their democratic rights were being take away. 3/

Trump spent weeks and months and years fueling a sense of grievance among his supporters and hostility to any political opponents, as well as condoning violence or mildly condemning it with a clear wink and a nod obviously meant to encourage it. 4/

In the weeks after the election, he compounded his big lie that he had won with efforts to take bogus claims to courts and to pressure officials at every level of government to overturn the results. He portrayed the across the board rejections as further persecution. 5/