It's very simple & short as it's a little over 3 pages. Article 1 is entitled, "Incitement of Insurrection". It focuses on the Trump rally in front of the WH during the deliberations on the electoral vote count in Congress in which he made false claims about the election.
The resolution next states that Trump "willfully made statements that encouraged—and foreseeably resulted in—imminent lawless action at the Capitol." He incited a riot which resulted in a mob attacking the Capitol and interfering in the process to certify the results.
The resolution brings up the phone call w/Raffensperger to 'find votes' to overturn the GA result to establish a long pattern & practice of Trump attempting to subvert election results. His activities threatened national security & interfered with a peaceful transition of power.
Because Trump represents an enduring threat to national security, the resolution calls for impeachment, trial, removal
from office, and "disqualification to hold and enjoy any office of honor, trust, or profit under the United States." That's it.
The primary purpose of impeachment imho is not removal from office. If that were the case, it wouldn't require 67 votes to remove. The threshold would be lower.
The purpose is to impose maximum political pressure on a corrupt POTUS and allies to deter them from further injurious conduct to the nation, while enabling Congress to investigate the matter, inform the people and refer matters for prosecution.
@SpeakerPelosi is using impeachment in the proper context to protect the nation. The main objective isn't to get his removal from office. It's to put pressure on Trump and deter him from undertaking more seditious or dangerous acts in his remaining days in the office.
If the pressure of impeachment forces his resignation or a 25A suspension, impeachment will have worked. If it freezes Trump's minions in place so they don't undertake criminal acts on his behalf b/c of the glare of impeachment, it will have worked.
If the pressure of impeachment results in a successful vote in the House (indictment) and a trial which doesn't begin until after he leaves office, but no other harm comes to the nation, and the inauguration of Biden goes smoothly, impeachment will have worked.
If impeachment raises the profile of the crime that was committed in such a manner as to compel the @FBI and DOJ to actually investigate what happened on 1/6 as a high crime & not as a localized rally that 'got a little out of hand' like a bar fight, impeachment will have worked.
I do know one thing: leaving Trump alone for his final days in office is the worst thing we can do. His propaganda army will sanitize and erase what happened on 1/6. He will seek vengeance and use all of his remaining power against the US. We must deter him w/the tools we have.
Bravo to the @HouseDemocrats and @SenateDems for aggressively responding to this unprecedented act of sedition against the US Congress. Let's see how things play out and let's be vigilant against potential threats to public officials and the Biden inauguration.

More from Trump

It’s not clear how Dr. Sean Conley has determined Trump will no longer need to isolate only 10 days after symptom onset.

Looks like the CDC Guidelines say Trump should be in the category that needs to isolate for 20 days after symptom onset.👇

Plus ...



2. Fauci on Thursday used a (test-based) approach, in which case, per Fauci:

Trump needs to isolate for 10 days after symptoms RESOLVE (not symptoms onset) and then two negative tests.

Note: based on his coughing on Hannity last night, Trump’s symptoms haven’t resolved yet.


3. Here’s a longer quote from Fauci (via @MarionRenault):

https://t.co/oRdrtxQe80


4. Also noteworthy: on Hannity last night, Trump wouldn’t say he’s tested negative.👇

Thus failing one of the conditions required by Fauci for Trump to be considered no longer contagious.


5/5. This resource on coronavirus (UpToDate) has been specially made available to the public. It describes the test-based and non-test-based approaches.

You May Also Like

1/“What would need to be true for you to….X”

Why is this the most powerful question you can ask when attempting to reach an agreement with another human being or organization?

A thread, co-written by @deanmbrody:


2/ First, “X” could be lots of things. Examples: What would need to be true for you to

- “Feel it's in our best interest for me to be CMO"
- “Feel that we’re in a good place as a company”
- “Feel that we’re on the same page”
- “Feel that we both got what we wanted from this deal

3/ Normally, we aren’t that direct. Example from startup/VC land:

Founders leave VC meetings thinking that every VC will invest, but they rarely do.

Worse over, the founders don’t know what they need to do in order to be fundable.

4/ So why should you ask the magic Q?

To get clarity.

You want to know where you stand, and what it takes to get what you want in a way that also gets them what they want.

It also holds them (mentally) accountable once the thing they need becomes true.

5/ Staying in the context of soliciting investors, the question is “what would need to be true for you to want to invest (or partner with us on this journey, etc)?”

Multiple responses to this question are likely to deliver a positive result.