I think about the reports that Trump was excited by the invasion of the capitol because he thought it would derail the count, and it makes me think of a quote from the movie Boondock Saints: "Television. Television is the explanation for this. You see this in bad television."

A few people are suggesting that the impeachment delay is necessary and unavoidable because of the time it takes to whip votes (make sure that the votes are there and the shakier edges of the coalition are firmed up).

This may well be true.

But as ever, messaging matters.

So let me tell you another reason we need to not back down, not sit down, not be quiet: coward that he is, Donald Trump is at his most dangerous when he feels like he's on top of the world.

The horse race headlines are saying that Donald Trump had his best day as president, and I'm sure he felt it. He just came through a knock-down, drag-out fight and won a battle that people had been telling him to drop for weeks, so right now no one can tell him anything.

If he gets it in his head that maybe he should fire Rosenstein? No one's going to be able to talk him out of it. He might even do it just to extend the high, or see how far he can take it.

When he's afraid and uncertain he'll lash out and that can be dangerous, but his insecurity causes him to both seek approval and fear traps in that state. But when he's invincible, he will indulge his worst impulses freely.

The same people who have been telling him not to mess with the investigation until after the midterms were among those telling him it would be so much easier to just replace Kavanaugh with someone less contentious. And what did they know? Nothing, he thinks. So why listen?

So, I got an email recently from someone thanking me for having pointed out that it's okay to PayPal a dollar, because that's usually what they have and they'd always thought of pledging/tipping a dollar on social media as rude, like tipping a waiter a penny.

It really isn't.

Some people have the impression that with transaction fees a dollar isn't "worth it", and might even effectively cost the person who receives it money. Also not the case.

The difference between a digital performance or service, like I provide on Twitter dot com, and the labor done by a waiter or bartender or driver, is that they're doing the job each time for each and every person who receives it. I do the same job for everybody who receives it.

It's worth it for me in the sense of being a sustainable way to spend my time if the money I bring in, in aggregate, is enough make it worth it. That works out the same if it's one generous patron dropping a ton of money at once or a crowd of appreciative audience members with $1

And in fact, in terms of long-term sustainability and independence, it's better to have lots of small patronage than a few high rollers.

Jesus. I just watched the Ashli Babbitt video that the Washington Post has, and if I'm following the conversation happening, the people at the front of the mob trying to break into the room told the police to leave, offering to "make a path" and saying...

They’re shooting into the chamber.

(MAJOR NOTE) The reason Manafort took over Trump's campaign in just 3 weeks despite being hired as a mere delegate counter is that ROGER STONE initiated a whisper campaign against Corey Lewandowski. That campaign started...days after Manafort returned from meeting with WikiLeaks.

2/ Stone and Manafort are longtime business partners; we'd expect Manafort to tell Stone what Assange told him, and for him to expect Stone to then pressure the campaign not only to hire him but quickly elevate him.

And who was Stone in touch with at the campaign? Trump himself.

3/ I bet you Manafort's late March emails are very interesting and that some of them are to/from his longtime business associate Roger Stone. And I bet Roger Stone's late March phone calls are very interesting and that some of them are to/from his longtime friend Donald Trump.

4/ At the end of March 2016, Trump suddenly convenes a NatSec meeting. At that meeting he directs his NatSec team to change the RNC platform in July to benefit Putin. Who later takes credit for that change?

Paul Manafort's business associate, Kremlin agent Konstantin Kilimnick.

5/ Why did Donald Trump suddenly convene a NatSec meeting 3 days after he finally hired Manafort? Why did he issue a pro-Kremlin directive at that meeting that Manafort's camp would later take credit for? What did Manafort tell Trump in the days leading up to that NatSec meeting?

NEW - on @skynews shortly:
Reliable source tells me Withdrawal Deal text contains

- No unilateral exit from backstop

- Large annexe on level playing field

.... after reporting this on @SkyNews I get a call from a different senior source that this is “spot on” and further that the Attorney General Geoffrey Cox has not pulled his punches in confirming in legal advice there is “no unilateral exit” from backstop ...

... furthermore I’m told (and this chimes with excellent Times splash this morning re Weyand) that the future partnership then takes its starting point as the activated backstop - ie UK-wide customs union-style arrangement and level playing field.

Understand that a ministerial briefing on the draft Withdrawal Agreement meant to drum up support from some trade organisations due tonight has now been postponed

So I've been reporting a story about how you'd fix the impeachment process. It doesn't work for removal, as currently designed. Impeachment was built for a political system without parties. It fails in a system with polarized parties.

The one time it functioned as intended, confusingly, was the time it didn't happen: Richard Nixon wasn't impeached! But the impeachment process, which came at the low ebb of party polarization in American history, convinced his party to force him to resign.

Would Republicans force Nixon to resign today?

Oh, you're cute. Thank you. I needed that.

The problem of impeachment is pretty simple: Presidents are leaders of parties. Parties are tied to the political fortunes of presidents. You're asking a party to basically wreck its immediate political future for the good of the system.

This doesn't just have the effect of making impeachment ineffective as a remedy. It's worse than that. It makes impeachment dangerous to the president's party, and gives them a reason to defend him and either normalize or minimize his crimes. As we are seeing right now.

Alright, I'm going to explain this one more time because I keep getting tweets like "people who vote for politicians who let them die of hypothermia deserve to die of hypothermia."

The people who voted red in Texas are, by and large, relatively fine right now. Yes, the storm has hurt them but the storm was going to hurt everyone.

But. They're either rich enough that *their* power wasn't cut off or rural enough that they have fireplaces and wood and wells.

Those millions without power are in places like Dallas county and Tarrant county and Harris county, I.e., the urban places that have the highest concentration of blue voters.

So it's not "(all/most) people voted for hypothermia and now they will fittingly die of hypothermia".

It's "(certain) people voted for the folks in cities to die of hypothermia, and they are, while the aforementioned voters are safe and dry and relatively comfortable."

Well, gosh, why don't those voters *do something* rather than passively being killed??

Do you know how many people live in Harris county? 4 million. Do you know how many ballot drop-off boxes they were allocated last election? 1.

1 box for 4 million people.