(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.
More from Seth Abramson
About a month ago, I said to Jeffrey Toobin that it was Mike Flynn—not Paul Manafort—who had the *most* to offer Robert Mueller on the collusion question, underscoring that Flynn's December 2017 plea deal gave Mueller far more than we ever realized. Now here we are, 10 months on.
2/ Trump had two opportunities to formally name Flynn and his co-conspirator Erik Prince to his NatSec team during the 2016 campaign—he declined to do so *both times*. In the criminal justice system this is evidence of consciousness of guilt. Trump knew what these men were doing.
3/ That Trump sought out Flynn—not the other way around—in August '15, and began using him as his chief NatSec adviser right away, but never put him on his National Security Advisory Committee is critical evidence that Flynn was working on projects that had to be "off the books."
New reports show more and more evidence Michael Flynn ran a collusion channel to Russia for Trump's campaign https://t.co/upgnbTAkAh pic.twitter.com/6LNtrXaSf7
— Jonathan Chait (@jonathanchait) October 20, 2018
2/ Trump had two opportunities to formally name Flynn and his co-conspirator Erik Prince to his NatSec team during the 2016 campaign—he declined to do so *both times*. In the criminal justice system this is evidence of consciousness of guilt. Trump knew what these men were doing.
3/ That Trump sought out Flynn—not the other way around—in August '15, and began using him as his chief NatSec adviser right away, but never put him on his National Security Advisory Committee is critical evidence that Flynn was working on projects that had to be "off the books."
More from Trump
Picking up on @henryfarrell's comments here, one implication of my work on democratic breakdown is that the US should harshly punish GOP leaders who attempted to keep Trump in power despite losing the election and fomented insurrection to advance that effort. 1/n
I wrote a book a decade ago that used game theory to explore the ways democracies die and what that tells us about how and why they sometimes survive. 2/n
One implication of the formal model in that book is that normative commitments to democracy may matter less than expectations about the benefits and costs of trying to subvert democracy. 3/n
It's great when all the major players (ruling party, opposition party, and military) believe democracy is good in itself. If they don't, tho, then what matters most are their beliefs about how easily they can seize power and how costly it would be to try and fail. 4/n
I think it's pretty clear that many key players in the GOP don't see democracy as a good in itself ("we're a republic, not a democracy"). So that shifts their attention to their ability to usurp power and the costs of trying and failing. 5/n
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.
— Henry Farrell (@henryfarrell) January 10, 2021
I wrote a book a decade ago that used game theory to explore the ways democracies die and what that tells us about how and why they sometimes survive. 2/n
One implication of the formal model in that book is that normative commitments to democracy may matter less than expectations about the benefits and costs of trying to subvert democracy. 3/n
It's great when all the major players (ruling party, opposition party, and military) believe democracy is good in itself. If they don't, tho, then what matters most are their beliefs about how easily they can seize power and how costly it would be to try and fail. 4/n
I think it's pretty clear that many key players in the GOP don't see democracy as a good in itself ("we're a republic, not a democracy"). So that shifts their attention to their ability to usurp power and the costs of trying and failing. 5/n
OK, #Squidigation fans, I think we need to talk about the new Wisconsin suit Donald Trump filed - personally - in Federal Court last night. The suit is (as usual) meritless. But it's meritless in new and disturbing ways. This thread will be
Not, I hope, Seth Abramson long. But will see.
I apologize in advance to my wife, who would very much prefer I be billing time (today's a light day, though) and to my assistant, to whom I owe some administrative stuff this will likely keep me from 😃
First, some background. Trump's suit essentially tries to Federalize the Wisconsin Supreme Court complaint his campaign filed, which we discussed here.
If you haven't already, go read that thread. I'm not going to be re-doing the same analysis, and I'm not going to be cross-linking to that discussion as we go. (Sorry, I like you guys, and I see this as public service, but there are limits)
Also, @5DollarFeminist has a good stand-alone thread analyzing the new Federal complaint - it's worth reading as well, though some of the analysis will overlap.
\U0001f6a8BREAKING: Trump files new federal court lawsuit in Wisconsin challenging the results of the election.https://t.co/LfKb2PUIkq
— Marc E. Elias (@marceelias) December 3, 2020
Not, I hope, Seth Abramson long. But will see.
I apologize in advance to my wife, who would very much prefer I be billing time (today's a light day, though) and to my assistant, to whom I owe some administrative stuff this will likely keep me from 😃
First, some background. Trump's suit essentially tries to Federalize the Wisconsin Supreme Court complaint his campaign filed, which we discussed here.
OK, #squidigation fans. This is a new Wisconsin case not filed by the Krake[n/d] team of Powell and Wood and NOT focusing on wild conspiracy theories. It's a competent and professional filing that raises things that would be real issues ... if you don't understand why they aren't https://t.co/ETvUiWV5du
— Akiva Cohen (@AkivaMCohen) December 1, 2020
If you haven't already, go read that thread. I'm not going to be re-doing the same analysis, and I'm not going to be cross-linking to that discussion as we go. (Sorry, I like you guys, and I see this as public service, but there are limits)
Also, @5DollarFeminist has a good stand-alone thread analyzing the new Federal complaint - it's worth reading as well, though some of the analysis will overlap.
Every one of these Trump election suits is the same gobbledygook garbage barge:
— Liz Dye (@5DollarFeminist) December 3, 2020
FRAUD!
It coulda happened.
Well, no, we can't prove it.
But just to be safe, best let the gerrymandered legislature give us all the electoral votes!https://t.co/Z926668H05 pic.twitter.com/xGZsJKIO7Y
You May Also Like
I like this heuristic, and have a few which are similar in intent to it:
Hiring efficiency:
How long does it take, measured from initial expression of interest through offer of employment signed, for a typical candidate cold inbounding to the company?
What is the *theoretical minimum* for *any* candidate?
How long does it take, as a developer newly hired at the company:
* To get a fully credentialed machine issued to you
* To get a fully functional development environment on that machine which could push code to production immediately
* To solo ship one material quanta of work
How long does it take, from first idea floated to "It's on the Internet", to create a piece of marketing collateral.
(For bonus points: break down by ambitiousness / form factor.)
How many people have to say yes to do something which is clearly worth doing which costs $5,000 / $15,000 / $250,000 and has never been done before.
Here's how I'd measure the health of any tech company:
— Jeff Atwood (@codinghorror) October 25, 2018
How long, as measured from the inception of idea to the modified software arriving in the user's hands, does it take to roll out a *1 word copy change* in your primary product?
Hiring efficiency:
How long does it take, measured from initial expression of interest through offer of employment signed, for a typical candidate cold inbounding to the company?
What is the *theoretical minimum* for *any* candidate?
How long does it take, as a developer newly hired at the company:
* To get a fully credentialed machine issued to you
* To get a fully functional development environment on that machine which could push code to production immediately
* To solo ship one material quanta of work
How long does it take, from first idea floated to "It's on the Internet", to create a piece of marketing collateral.
(For bonus points: break down by ambitiousness / form factor.)
How many people have to say yes to do something which is clearly worth doing which costs $5,000 / $15,000 / $250,000 and has never been done before.
