(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.

(THREAD) Media has yet to do a deep dive on precisely what Trump *said* in his January 6 speech in DC—a speech now called an "incitement to insurrection," and the basis for an article of impeachment coming Monday. This thread unpacks the speech. I hope you'll read on and RETWEET.

1/ First, many don't realize that while the name of the *rally* was "Stop the Steal," Trump spoke flanked by banners that read "Save America March"—Save America being the PAC Trump has used since the election to scam voters out of more than $300 million for "election defense."

2/ It appears, therefore, that the link between Trump, his opposition to Biden's January 6 certification in Congress, and the insurrectionist march on the Capitol is one that comes, incredibly, with a paper trail—as it appears Trump *paid for* the seditious "Save America March."

3/ Seconds into his speech, Trump says, "These people are not going to take it any longer. They're not going to take it any longer...They came from all over our country. I just really want to see what they do." It's an astonishing admission he thinks something is going to happen.

4/ Trump then seems to catch himself, repeating the phrase "I just really want to see" but now adding "how they [media] cover it [the Save America March]." It's hard to know, therefore—perhaps deliberately—whether "what they do" means "what media does" or "what the marchers do."

(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*.

I don't care one way or another about the Elizabeth Warren DNA kerfuffle; it's silliness bred of Trump's lunacy, not a serious political matter.

But—*but*—the blowback on Warren is useful as a reminder that facts, science, and really truth of any kind is now anathema to the GOP.

2/ If you're online trying to convince a Trumpist of *anything*—I mean *anything*—stop right now.

The Trumpists' reaction to Warren's DNA test—a cacophony of fact-free insanity about race and DNA and even just *the bare facts of what happened*—tells you you're wasting your time.

3/ I don't see the point in baiting Trumpists, or insulting them, or calling attention to their madness on a daily basis. These people are fundamentally unserious about truth, discourse, and anything resembling a community of ideas. So:

1) Ignore them—completely.
2) Vote—always.

4/ I don't always live up to that standard, but I'm *trying*. I'm *trying* to ignore as beneath dialogic significance those who say "most people" have Native American ancestry, or who can't read basic studies to understand Warren's DNA test, or who say Trump never made a bet, &c.

5/ Trump wants to call Warren "Pocahontas" because he's a racist, wants to appeal to racists, and his cult-like following so ignores *everything bad he does* that they think that, had she lied—she didn't—*this* (this!) would be worse than anything Trump has done.

*Process that*.

🆚: (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.

(THREAD) Pre-election Russia collusion may take down Trump. It's equally possible the Trumps' pre- and post-election collusion with Saudi Arabia, the UAE, and Israel will do it—a course of collusion also connected to the Kremlin. I explain here. I hope you'll read on and retweet.

1/ I must stress how unbelievably complex the "Grand Bargain" theory of the Trump-Russia case is—a different thing from saying it's not substantiated. It's substantiated in *almost every single particular*—it just *also* happens to be very confusing. Not byzantine—just confusing.

2/ The basics: Saudi Arabia, Israel, and the UAE all view Iran as their chief regional enemy. Iran is propped up by Russia. Therefore the Saudis, Israelis, and Emiratis all need a US government willing to find a way to get the Kremlin to *stop* supporting Iran in the Middle East.

3/ The best way to get Russia to stop supporting Iran—or reduce support—was/is to drop all sanctions on Russia over its 2014 annexation of Crimea, as that'd be worth *trillions* to the Kremlin over the next decade. Everyone knew that Clinton wouldn't do this—and that Trump would.

4/ Per the NYT, on August 3, 2016, Donald Trump Jr. met secretly at Trump Tower with a Saudi and Emirati emissary, George Nader, as well as an Israeli intelligence expert, Joel Zamel, with *significant* ties to both Israeli intelligence *and* Russian oligarchs allied with Putin.

THREAD (WOW!)

1) If you want to watch a Coordinated Media Disinformation Campaign play out (just like the Trump-Russia Collision Hoax), there's one playing out right now in real

2) @TWPundit Exclusively Reported 10/13

"expect to see multiple...stories related to Turkey which will...be tied together by a massive “bombshell” piece in the @nytimes ...near election day in a well-coordinated smear campaign"
Yep, the piece just

3) The Turkey Disinformation Campaign is following the exact same playbook as the 2016 Trump-Russia Collision Hoax, and with all the same

4) In 2016, there were 3 separate stories related to Russia’s connection to @realDonaldTrump that dropped on Oct 31st.

Article #1 from Soros-funded @MotherJones by @DavidCornDC about @carterwpage alleging he was a secret Russian operative. Fake

5) Article #2 from @FinancialTimes about @SergeiMillian and his connection to Trump Tower projects

Trump on climate: I don't believe it. Trump on Khashoggi: I don't believe it. Trump on Russia: I don't believe it. Idiocy? A canny game? Doesn't really matter as much as the underlying intellectual autocracy. In this administration only one opinion matters.

It's an assault on facts and reason. It's an assault on good governance. It's an assault on the bureaucracies that are being discounted. It's an assault on science and history. But it is also an assault on one of the underpinnings of democracy.

We live in a system that is grounded on the idea of collaborative government. Leaders may have a final word but even then, there are typically checks and balances. Hopefully, in this case, such checks and balances may work. But they also are being tested.

The president's position that he is smarter than all the world's scientists, than the entire intelligence community, than experts who have studied any issue all their lives, is, of course, asinine. But his belief that government turns solely on his opinion, is monarchic.

Louis XIV reportedly said, "L'etat est moi." That he was the state. Trump asserting that he knows better than all, discounts all advice, that his brain is enough to chart the course for America alone, is essentially saying the same thing.

We promised people that if we won the Senate, we would send out $2,000 survival checks. They delivered us to victory—and now we MUST deliver.

“Targeting” checks to a smaller group fails to do that. People need help like never before, and we must put money in their pockets.

“Targeting” checks isn’t just bad for people, it’s bad policy too! It’s not humane, it's not smart, it’s not effective, and it’s not even fiscally responsible. Not to mention that it doesn't meet the scale of this crisis.

Help me spread the word about 4 obvious reasons why:

1⃣The survival checks often use 2019 tax data to measure someone’s income.

Millions lost their jobs in 2020 due to COVID—that’s the whole point of this relief!—and therefore their income from 1 or 2 years ago is no longer accurate. They need help now and we must provide it.

Even if someone isn’t one of the nearly 1 million additional people losing their job EVERY single week, they likely lost hours and therefore had their overall income significantly reduced.

By “targeting,” we cut out people who are desperately in need of help.

2⃣The data from people who filed for unemployment shows that more than 20% of those earning between $50k and $70k were still food insecure.

That's up 16% from 2019—and it's why food banks have such long lines. We need to put money in their pockets so they can feed their family.