Read on Twitter
THREAD. This is a key part of the impeachment managers' case against Trump -- he knew and intended for the insurrection he incited to occur. He was thrilled, and couldn't understand why others weren't as happy watching this attack on American democracy. /1
Trump spread lies about the legislatures acting to secure the election in states like MI and elsewhere, and his supporters showed up, armed, to threaten elected representatives. /2
Trump spread lies about the normal process of vote counting going on in Philadelphia, Detroit, Atlanta, Phoenix, and elsewhere, and his supporters showed up, armed, to threaten volunteers and other election workers. /3
Trump spread lies about election officials of both parties, state and local, and his supporters showed up, armed, to threaten election officials and their families in AZ, GA, MI, PA, and elsewhere, often at their homes, where children were present. /4
Trump spread lies about the electoral votes cast in the state capitals, and his supporters showed up, armed, at a rally on Dec. 12 (vandalizing a church) and to threaten electors, legislators, and legislative staff on Dec. 14. /5
Trump then spread lies for nearly a month, before Jan. 6th, about the election being stolen, and beat the drum, daily, for his supporters to come to DC on the day of the Joint Session, and inflamed their anger and sense of grievance. /6
It was not a surprise, then, that his most incited supporters, those willing to spend $$$ to travel from all over the country, did as they were told, to "save the country" from the "theft". They came armed, and fanatical, ready for exactly the activity the president intended. /7
He knew that his lies had whipped his supporters into a frenzy, and he knew what the result of that frenzy would be - threats, violence, and destruction. He'd seen it before. And he had concentrated all their anger, falsely, on the Capitol, Congress, and the Vice President. /8
It's as strong an incitement case as I can imagine being made. This is a very strong case that Trump's activity was directed to inciting imminent lawless action and was likely to incite or produce such action, which would be sufficient even in a criminal court. /9
Whether this convinces 17 Republican senators is still unclear, and perhaps even unlikely, but nobody can claim that the case for conviction isn't compelling. And he has declined every opportunity to express regret, or make clear he would not repeat this activity. /END
