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

Enough! Reporters doing it again. Both-sidesing. U enable Trump's propaganda by doing this

Reporter's both-sides question:

"What was your role in what happened at the Capitol?

Proper question:

"Are you going to take responsibility for your role in inciting insurrection?"


The press enabled the storming of the Capitol because they never held GOP accountable for pushing #TheBigLie that election was stolen

I have been yelling about this for months. Starting here where @TerryMoran got it right

But after press returned to form


Not long after Nov 4th press started both-sidesing again. Question Republicans were asked over & over was:

"Do u think Biden won?"

This enabled the coup

The proper question at minimum:

"Why are u enabling this charade? Why are u spreading


After repeatedly yelling that press wasn't demanding answers of GOP for spreading #TheBigLie I hoped this political violence on Dec 10th would finally get press to demand answers. But no. They continued to both-sides


I noted how impotent the American press was acting by treating #TheBigLie as credible. The press is supposed to hold people in power accountable, but beside @TerryMoran on election night, they by and large
1. @NYGovCuomo became a pandemic star by contrasting himself with Trump

Cuomo crafted an IMAGE of being determined, honest and grounded in science

But 11 months later this image is falling apart

Follow along for a FACTUAL assessment of Cuomo's

2. Cuomo WROTE A BOOK, published in October, celebrating his own leadership during the pandemic.

Cuomo writes that NY had "confronted and defeated" the virus, and had "achieved what all the experts told us was impossible."

Today, things look

3. Today, New York has 338 people hospitalized with COVID per million residents.

This is the HIGHEST NUMBER IN ANY STATE by a considerable margin.

https://t.co/Hl4fsFxB6l


4. Overall, 46K New Yorkers have died of COVID, which trails only California (47K), a state with 2x as many people.

On a per capita basis, New York has had more deaths than every state but New Jersey.

Cuomo made decisions that made things

5. A new report by NY AG Letitia James (D) found Cuomo's order requiring nursing homes to accept residents w/COVID "may have put residents at increased risk of harm"

Cuomo dismissed criticisms of his nursing home policies in his book as

You May Also Like

I just finished Eric Adler's The Battle of the Classics, and wanted to say something about Joel Christiansen's review linked below. I am not sure what motivates the review (I speculate a bit below), but it gives a very misleading impression of the book. 1/x


The meat of the criticism is that the history Adler gives is insufficiently critical. Adler describes a few figures who had a great influence on how the modern US university was formed. It's certainly critical: it focuses on the social Darwinism of these figures. 2/x

Other insinuations and suggestions in the review seem wildly off the mark, distorted, or inappropriate-- for example, that the book is clickbaity (it is scholarly) or conservative (hardly) or connected to the events at the Capitol (give me a break). 3/x

The core question: in what sense is classics inherently racist? Classics is old. On Adler's account, it begins in ancient Rome and is revived in the Renaissance. Slavery (Christiansen's primary concern) is also very old. Let's say classics is an education for slaveowners. 4/x

It's worth remembering that literacy itself is elite throughout most of this history. Literacy is, then, also the education of slaveowners. We can honor oral and musical traditions without denying that literacy is, generally, good. 5/x