(TRUE STORY) In the weeks before the 2020 election, ex-Overstock CEO Patrick Byrne was desperately trying to get to me through an intermediary to share info about the coming election he claimed was critical.

I ignored his overtures.

Donald Trump invited him to the Oval Office.

BREAKING NEWS: Top Trump Fundraiser/Former Trump-Appointed RNC Official Elliott Broidy Charged with Federal Crimes; Broidy Is a Key Figure in the Proof Series Books on Trump's Bribery and Collusion with Foreigners—and Looks to Be Charged With Such Conduct

PS/ Broidy has a *lot* to tell federal investigators about Trump's illicit dealings in the Middle East. As with pedophile/now-federal-convict George Nader—one of Broidy's chief co-conspirators—if the feds don't cut a deal with Broidy to get info on Trump, Barr has put the fix in.

PS2/ Today is a day I want to reach out with warmth and appreciation to all readers of the Proof series—who've known this indictment was coming for well over a year and are probably as excited as I am that a key Proof-series figure is being taken down *just* as he deserves to be.

PS3/ There are associations between Broidy and Trump's mistresses, Broidy and Prince's mercenary companies, Broidy and Michael Cohen, Broidy and George Nader's illicit work with Saudi Arabia and the UAE... this is a *big* get for federal investigators, if they *want* it to be.

It's official: US media has permitted Republicans to establish the meaning of "corroborating evidence" to include *only* eyewitness testimony or a confession—a definition "corroborating evidence" has never had in the history of the American criminal justice system. Thanks, media.

2/ Mind you, we have two *direct* (sworn) eyewitnesses to Kavanaugh committing multiple sexual assaults: Swetnick and Accuser #4, whose affidavits corroborate one another. But we also have multiple *contemporaneous disclosures* (as close to an eyewitness as it gets) for Ramirez.

3/ We also have 10 prior disclosures for Dr. Ford, all preceding Kavanaugh being nominated. This too is a form of corroborating evidence. And the testimonial evidence establishing that Kavanaugh lied under oath is now... legion. At least six to ten witnesses. Where was the media?

4/ To attorneys, the "no corroboration" claim is a *farce*. But it's been allowed to stand by the media because apparently there were too few analysts out there given the time or space to discuss what "corroboration" means in the US legal system. So we get a travesty of justice.

(THREAD) Independent journalists have already created a comprehensive list of impeachment trial witnesses who can *confirm* Team Trump helped plan the insurrection. Those witnesses can now be called. This thread lists the proof. Please RETWEET this widely.

(ARTICLE 2)

(ARTICLE 3)

(ARTICLE 4)

(ARTICLE 5)

@LambeJerry Question for you: On Monday, Congress announces it's going to vote to impeach a federal judge on Wednesday. The president of the United States decides to issue a preemptive pardon of the judge on Tuesday. According to you, there's no problem, right, as there was no impeachment?

My thinking on this is identical to that of a law professor at Northwestern University who published his opinion in the NYT. But that wasn't mentioned in your piece. It's also odd that you believe the impeachment exception has nothing *really* to do with separation of powers.

You couldn't possibly think the impeachment exception has anything to do with separation of powers, as according to you and the small number of attorneys you cited, the impeachment exception isn't *actually* about keeping the president from interfering in the impeachment process.

Per you, the impeachment exception to the Pardon Clause of the United States Constitution is just a *narrow administrative cutout* to make sure that a President doesn't cause the Congress to have...what, have wasted their time? I'd love to see an argument for that interpretation.

I've read the documents surrounding the creation of both the Pardon Clause and the impeachment exception. The framers were explicitly concerned about the sort of situation we have encountered now—which is entirely unlike the situation in Garland. Your legal analysis is facile.

1. Short thread - on the various claims we're seeing from Republican politicians over the last few days that the Democratic push for accountability is "divisive." Damn right it's divisive - that is what it has to be.

2. It is intended to enforce a clear division between those who accept and are committed to democracy and those who are willing to turn to violence when the vote doesn't turn out the way that they want it to.

3. One of the basic implications of Adam Przeworski's theoretic work is that democracy is made out of mutually reinforcing expectations, and those expectations are fragile. If some actors think they would be better off defecting from the democratic bargain, they will.

4. In other words: democracy and armed factionalism are far closer than we think, or we would like them to be. This means that it is incredibly important to police the boundaries between them. Allowing some to turn to violence can lead to expectation collapse and cascading ruin.

5. When we allow the divisions to become blurred, that means that we are running the perpetual risk of things getting fucked up. If a major faction turns to violence, and no-one responds, things can get really fucked up really, really fast.

1/Zach has the history right (again). I doubt the current political leadership read the book where Summers et al explained what they did, unless they look at borrowed copies. Here it is: https://t.co/4gyFiagaj3

2/ But the summary is that Summers, Geithner, Orszag, Emanuel agreed on telling Obama and Biden in December 2008 that about $800b was an adequate stimulus. Would lower unemployment just below 8% by late 2010. Romer thought $2.1T or $1.7T was needed to achieve full employment.

3/ They wouldn't let her make the case in writing for $1.2T because her number could leak. The reasons for $800b were: they wanted the bill passed by February, so they could move on to health care reform and cap and trade; they had no ways to spend more;

4/ spending more might kick off inflation or cause markets to fall for fear of inflation; that might lead to more bank runs; more bank runs might require a second TARP so they couldn't ask Congress for too much for recovery; Pelosi would give them whatever they asked

5/ for but they didn't think they could get the needed 1 or 2 R Senators quickly if they asked for more; they wanted 60 but had only 58 D Senators; popular "moonshots" or signature items in the package would take too long (Biden asked for that);

Aaron Rupar owning himself, a thread