Trump biographers—including me—and many Washington journalists are telling America that (a) Trump will never stop his coup attempt, (b) there's no bottom to what he's willing to do, therefore (c) there's no final "victory" over Trump we can celebrate.

I hope America will listen.

Donald Trump is a profoundly damaged mind. Everyone close to him who gets escape velocity from his madness says so. Friends. Employees. Family members. Trump's pathologies make him an ongoing danger to America that Biden's DOJ and intelligence officials *cannot afford* to ignore.

Too many journalists wrote pieces tonight calling the SCOTUS decision in the Texas lawsuit a "fatal blow" to Trump's coup. Listen—the coup was never going to succeed and Biden was always going to be sworn in. The question is what the country will look like when (and after) he is.

So you have a man on a mission to destroy this country who has it within his power to do so and you think his pathological scheme will cease because of a court decision? The "coup" concept will unfold over as long a period as Trump needs for him to get what he wants: total power.

Lara Trump will run for the Senate in North Carolina, they say. Ivanka Trump is mulling a Florida Senate run. Donald Trump Jr. is mulling the Montana governorship. The GOP may be the "Trump Party" by 2024.

This is an ongoing effort to build an autocratic dynasty and end America.

(THREAD) The main problem with that @DanDrezner piece in the Post is that it's an international politics prof writing about the field in which I'm a professor—communications. No one in communications would *ever* compare the blogosphere to either Twitter or Substack. Here's why.

1/ Back in the mid-aughts, I was a Koufax Award-nominated political blogger (I don't know what Drezner was doing then; I first heard of him about a year ago). So I was into the blogosphere pretty deep, as I also ran a second high-traffic blog that was focused on the art world.

2/ The "blogosphere" was an outgrowth of MySpace and LiveJournal, inasmuch as in the heady early days of the internet people suddenly realized that they could engage in private diaristic writing—a very specific subgenre of writing—in the public square, and it was suddenly "okay."

3/ So the blogosphere as such had *nothing* to do with journalism, which needless to say was in a different state just 15 years ago (note: unlike Drezner, I also teach writing and journalism at the university level, so this thread is squarely "in my area," unlike his Post piece).

4/ The blogosphere was a manifestation of the transformation of the public-private binary at the dawn of the internet—and *also* connected to the "creative writing" explosion (what I did a PhD on); in the aughts, creative writing was the fastest-growing discipline *in the world*.

(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.

(ARTICLE 2)

(ARTICLE 3)

(ARTICLE 4)

(ARTICLE 5)

Republicans' goal is to rush this vote so dramatically America and the media don't have time to realize CORROBORATING EVIDENCE isn't defined ANYTHING like Republicans say it is—and that the now four Kavanaugh accusers have ALL offered SUBSTANTIAL corroboration. Wake up, US media!

Republicans ALSO want to devise a NEW STANDARD never before applied in the history of the Supreme Court: that MULTIPLE PERJURIES by the nominee—CONFIRMED by BOTH testimonial AND documentary evidence—AREN'T an automatic disqualifier from confirmation. But they ARE. They're CRIMES.

Given that Trump gave the FBI a week, handcuffed it, lied about that, promised to stop, then didn't, the FBI has an ethical obligation to:

(1) Notify Trump that more interviews are needed;
(2) Document every tip or lead it acquired, whether or not pursued.

RETWEET if you agree.

MSNBC medical experts are underscoring that the course of treatment Trump is on is one you would *not* apply to someone who's doing well—but to someone who is struggling. Indeed, the experts say, it would be a *dangerous* treatment to give to a COVID-19 patient who is doing well.

NOTE/ The specific cause for concern here is the steroids; they're given to "severe and critical" hospitalized patients, and could harm patients who are not having breathing or immune-response issues. Keep in mind Trump's doctors claim they're discussing discharging him tomorrow.

NOTE2/ Tomorrow Trump's doctors will come up with a reason why he can't be discharged. Or they'll recall what was always the case—Trump can get basically the same treatment at the White House. I maintain the most likely scenario is that he demanded Walter Reed, then regretted it.

NOTE3/ Another possibility: Trump's White House doctors are basically jokes who just do whatever he tells them, and he wanted the real doctors at Walter Reed. Now that *real* doctors have set the course of treatment, Trump can go to the White House unless/until it becomes acute.

@LambeJerry Question for you: On Monday, Congress announces it's going to vote to impeach a federal judge on Wednesday. The president of the United States decides to issue a preemptive pardon of the judge on Tuesday. According to you, there's no problem, right, as there was no impeachment?

My thinking on this is identical to that of a law professor at Northwestern University who published his opinion in the NYT. But that wasn't mentioned in your piece. It's also odd that you believe the impeachment exception has nothing *really* to do with separation of powers.

You couldn't possibly think the impeachment exception has anything to do with separation of powers, as according to you and the small number of attorneys you cited, the impeachment exception isn't *actually* about keeping the president from interfering in the impeachment process.

Per you, the impeachment exception to the Pardon Clause of the United States Constitution is just a *narrow administrative cutout* to make sure that a President doesn't cause the Congress to have...what, have wasted their time? I'd love to see an argument for that interpretation.

I've read the documents surrounding the creation of both the Pardon Clause and the impeachment exception. The framers were explicitly concerned about the sort of situation we have encountered now—which is entirely unlike the situation in Garland. Your legal analysis is facile.

(TRUE STORY) In the weeks before the 2020 election, ex-Overstock CEO Patrick Byrne was desperately trying to get to me through an intermediary to share info about the coming election he claimed was critical.

I ignored his overtures.

Donald Trump invited him to the Oval Office.

I had messages from Byrne's rep on every social media platform I'm reachable on. I decided that his public instability was such that I wanted nothing to do with him. Incredible to think that the President of the United States—the most powerful man alive—made a different decision.

MORE/

NOTE/ What's telling about this—and what U.S. media might wonder about, now—is whether Byrne was contacting me to tell the same tale he told the president in the Oval. Seems unlikely, right? Seems like maybe Byrne is just peddling nonsense wherever he thinks he can get attention?

NOTE2/ Here's what I can tell everyone (and media): Byrne represented—via his rep—he'd been in touch with Roger Stone, and wanted to talk to journalists pre-election about the FBI/Comey. I'm sure I'm not the only one he contacted. After all, we know he contacted the White House.

Hey, fun fact, threatening an elections official with criminal prosecution unless he rigs an election in your favor is not just impeachable but a federal crime

1/ Many federal criminal statutes could come into play here, but here's one: 52 U.S.C § 20511 punishes by up to 5 years in prison "attempting to deprive or defraud the residents of a State of a fair and impartially conducted election process by the procurement or tabulation...

2/ "...of ballots that are known by the person to be materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent under the laws of the State in which the election is held." When the chief elections official of the State of Georgia tells you the votes you want him to "find" would be fictitious...

3/ ...and you persist in not just urging him but threatening him to "find" those "votes" and give them to you, federal law does not allow you to be *willfully ignorant* of the fact that you are urging fictitious votes to be added to the State of Georgia's legally certified tally.

4/ But it's even worse than this for Trump, as he explicitly tells the chief elections official for Georgia that he only "needs" enough votes to win—which is an acknowledgment that he doesn't have a specific actionable complaint but is merely trying to *rig* the election outcome.

The Pardon Clause prohibits using the pardon power to obstruct impeachments. Trump repeatedly opined—rightly—that Mueller's probe could lead to a referral for possible impeachment (which it did). The pardons he just gave are the ones he dangled to obstruct Mueller. See the issue?

Those who say the pardon power is unreviewable aren't just wrong, they *know* they're wrong. The Pardon Clause makes explicit that Congress has standing and a cause of action if the power is used to obstruct an impeachment. So the power is definitionally reviewable by the courts.

Moreover, if the grant of a pardon is itself a high crime or misdemeanor, it creates an irresolvable conflict between the Impeachment Clause and the Pardon Clause that only a federal court can resolve—making a pardon reviewable in that scenario too. That's the situation we're in.

Moreover, if a pardon constituting an abuse of power is issued so late in a presidential term it can't be remedied via the normal means—impeachment—it becomes impermissibly non-justiciable, and thus immediately reviewable by a court. That also happens to be the current situation.

Moreover, if a pardon constitutes the actus reus in an ongoing crime, the pardon itself can't pardon the ongoing crime—and therefore becomes legally inert and inoperative, as the pardoned party can still be prosecuted. That also happens to be the situation we're in right now.

BREAKING NEWS: Trump May Be Planning to Leave Country 24 Hours Before He Loses Immunity From Prosecution

"Prestwick Airport has been told to expect the arrival of a US military Boeing 757 aircraft which has been occasionally used by Trump, on January 19."

(PS) With Scotland going into lockdown, I don't know if this is a realistic option for Trump. But every major media report we've gotten for the last 2 months has said that Trump is almost *preternaturally* obsessed with losing his immunity from criminal prosecution on January 20.

(PS2) I've repeatedly said that—based upon my experience with 2,000+ criminal defendants—I don't believe that Trump would flee the country unless he believed he was facing imminent arrest (which, to be very clear, I don't think he believes). But this story is real and intriguing.

(PS3) The proper course of action now is for media to find out if Trump will be leaving the country at the moment that he loses his immunity from criminal prosecution. That is *also* the proper frame for the story—given what we know to be Trump's state of mind and preoccupations.

(PS4) The other, concurrent news story to at least keep in mind here is that Trump is in a legal dispute with his neighbors in Florida over whether he can reside at Mar-A-Lago. It gives him the perfect excuse to say that he needs to spend a few months at his property in Scotland.

(TRUE STORY) In the weeks before the 2020 election, ex-Overstock CEO Patrick Byrne was desperately trying to get to me through an intermediary to share info about the coming election he claimed was critical.

I ignored his overtures.

Donald Trump invited him to the Oval Office.

I had messages from Byrne's rep on every social media platform I'm reachable on. I decided that his public instability was such that I wanted nothing to do with him. Incredible to think that the President of the United States—the most powerful man alive—made a different decision.

MORE/

NOTE/ What's telling about this—and what U.S. media might wonder about, now—is whether Byrne was contacting me to tell the same tale he told the president in the Oval. Seems unlikely, right? Seems like maybe Byrne is just peddling nonsense wherever he thinks he can get attention?

NOTE2/ Here's what I can tell everyone (and media): Byrne represented—via his rep—he'd been in touch with Roger Stone, and wanted to talk to journalists pre-election about the FBI/Comey. I'm sure I'm not the only one he contacted. After all, we know he contacted the White House.

The Alabama duo—Mo Brooks and Tommy Tuberville—is one I suspect the FBI will want to investigate. At all stages of the insurrection it seems Trump was working with two Alabama Republicans to ensure the insurrection and the opposition to Biden's certification worked hand-in-glove.

(PS) Mo Brooks was the first Republican to say he'd challenge Biden's certification; was at Trump's rally talking about "kicking ass"; was allegedly conspiring with Akbar. His Alabama GOP delegation peer, Tuberville, was Trump's Senate man, contacted by Giuliani mid-insurrection.

(PS2) A lot of people will be asking about conversations that may have occurred between/amongst Trump, Giuliani, Brooks, Biggs, Gosar, Tuberville, and Akbar as to how the insurrection would be timed and how it would dovetail with Brooks'/Tuberville's actions inside the Capitol.

(PS3) We now know both Trump and Giuliani contacted Tuberville as the insurrection was happening to get him to artificially elongate his objections to Biden's win. These exhortations would've had the effect—and appear to have been intended to—give the insurrectionists more time.

(PS4) I say "appear to have been intended to" because we now have numerous major-media reports establishing that Trump was "excited," "pleased," and "enthusiastic" as the insurrection unfolded. This was the same period of time he tried to *elongate* GOP objections to Biden's win.

🆚: (MAJOR REPORT): For the first time in U.S. media, Donald Trump's plan for the January 6 insurrection has been itemized, fully sourced, and annotated. The 12-part strategy, never before outlined, is terrifying—and involves elements not widely discussed.

PS/ As most of you here know, the "🆚" symbol means content accessible "via subscription." I use this icon both for certain PROOF content and content from sites like the Washington Post and the WSJ. You can find dozens of free articles at PROOF to decide if you want to subscribe.

PS2/ There are *47* free articles at PROOF—all published in the last 60 days, and the product of hundreds of hours of research/writing. I know not everyone subscribes to the many outlets that are 🆚—WP, WSJ, NYT, Daily Beast, &c—so I offer scores of reading-hours of free content.

NOTE/ As I mentioned earlier this week, I'll do a public AMA (Ask Me Anything) thread at PROOF shortly, so folks—whether subscribers or not—can ask any questions of me they have. I'll do my best, but if past is precedent I'll only be able to get to 40-80 of hundreds of questions.

(🔐) PROOF EXCLUSIVE: Kimberly Guilfoyle’s Congressional Testimony About January 6 Was As Bizarre As Any the House January 6 Committee Received

This is the fourth entry in PROOF’s year-long JANUARY 6 FILES series.

I hope you’ll subscribe and RT. #J6Files

1/ This part of the PROOF analysis of Guilfoyle’s absolutely shocking January 6 testimony focuses on the last week of December 2020, when Trump was at Mar-a-Lago plotting his January 6 coup.

2/ At the time, Guilfoyle was living at Mar-a-Lago. As was Don Jr. Guilfoyle’s top aide, Caroline Wren, was the chief organizer of January 6 at the time. And the top donor Guilfoyle had personally developed for Trump (Julie Jenkins Fancelli) was the chief funder of January 6.

3/ From December 22 to December 31, 2020, Trump repeatedly met with co-conspirators at Mar-a-Lago, where (again) Guilfoyle was then living. Guilfoyle was at the time a Trump presidential adviser, a Trump campaign finance chair, a Trump cultist, and Trump’s future daughter-in-law.

4/ If you know just these basic facts, the claims Guilfoyle made UNDER OATH to Congress will absolutely blow your hair back.

Either John Roberts is in the majority on the MS abortion case and passed over Clarence Thomas to assign the opinion to Alito, or Thomas is the senior Justice in the majority and chose not to assign the opinion to himself.

Either way, there’s a story here media must investigate.

My two preliminary thoughts:

(1) Thomas understands there’s heat on him and his wife over January 6, and moreover is in a position to know if that heat is *justified*. That in this context he passed up the chance to write the most important opinion of his life is *very* telling.

(2) There’s reasoned speculation from a Yale prof who was a former SCOTUS clerk—see link in my feed—that this opinion was leaked by a conservative clerk (with Thomas’s clerks the top suspects) to strongarm either Kavanaugh or Gorsuch into joining an opinion they were wavering on.

Remember that “Thomas Clerk World”—the private listserv for Thomas clerks past and present *and* insurrectionist Ginni Thomas—has been under scrutiny over January 6. These are the most radical clerks in America. *If* there was a far-right leak, they would be the leading suspects.

In fact, John Roberts’ investigation might well think to *start* with “Thomas Clerk World,” as it’s the one known digital venue for the sharing of information where Supreme Court clerks interact with insurrectionists who we *know* do not believe in rule of law: like Ginni Thomas.