The Soft Bigotry of Expecting the Commander in Chief to Only Tweet

Based on what source does the lawyer for Donald Trump — a client who never listened to security briefings when he used to be President — state (in an interview with Maggie Haberman, but not in his written defense) that the January 6 insurrectionists planned their attack in advance?

Mr. Schoen pointed to another potential argument that could help Mr. Trump, one not related to free speech: that at least some of the Trump supporters who stormed the Capitol planned their attack in advance, suggesting that Mr. Trump was not the inciting force.

“I have no reason to believe anyone involved with Trump was in the know,” he said of the violence that unfolded at the Capitol.

This defense doesn’t help Doug Schoen as much as he thinks. After all, the House brief lays out how, even before the Proud Boys were overtly planning for the insurrection (and meeting with Lindsey Graham and finding a spot on a tour of the White House), Trump had called on the extremist group to

During a debate on September 29, for instance, he told the Proud Boys— a violent extremist group with ties to white nationalism—to “stand back and stand by.”48


On January 2, for example, Fox News reported on a social media declaration by Proud Boys Leader Enrique Tarrio that the Proud Boys would come to the January 6 rally prepared for violence.59 Another Proud Boys organizer said, “We are going to smell like you, move like you, and look like you. The only thing we’ll do that’s us is think like us! Jan 6th is gonna be epic.”60

As someone who has spent much of the last four weeks tracking what is publicly known about the terrorist attack, anyone following closely enough to know how the Proud Boys, especially, plotted in advance also knows that Trump was coordinating with them going back months and his rat-fucker Roger Stone was coordinating with them even longer, also knows that the mobs breaking into the Capitol timed their move closely with (among other things) Trump’s speech, and knows as well that Trump and Rudy were both coordinating with events on the Hill using the mob as a delaying tactic.

But Schoen seems to be considering talking about what someone who refused briefing knew and did not know about an attack while he was still President.

I especially find Schoen’s certainty about what an ongoing investigation shows given a fairly remarkable passage in the House trial brief. There’s an 11-paragraph section describing, “President Trump’s Dereliction of Duty During the Attack.” The first describes how Trump watched in delight.

As armed insurrectionists breached the Capitol—and as Vice President Pence, the Congress, and the Capitol Police feared for their lives—President Trump was described by those around him as “borderline enthusiastic because it meant the certification was being derailed.”141 Senior administration officials described President Trump as “delighted” and reported that he was “walking around the White House confused about why other people on his team weren’t as excited as he was as you had rioters pushing against Capitol Police trying to get into the building.”142

But it’s another five paragraphs before the House brief mentions that Trump was the Commander in Chief.

During this time, not only did President Trump fail to issue unequivocal statements ordering the insurrectionists to leave the Capitol; he also failed in his duties as Commander in Chief by not immediately taking action to protect Congress and the Capitol. This failure occurred despite multiple members of Congress, from both parties, including on national television, vehemently urging President Trump to take immediate action.

That is, the House brief focuses on what Trump did or didn’t tweet, and what victims he never called (while calling Tommy Tuberville to coordinate his delaying tactics).

But it barely mentions that Trump sat in the White House watching an attack on the Nation’s Capitol — one his lawyer now suggests he had some knowledge of — and he did literally nothing to intervene. True, there is a thoroughly unreliable Vanity Fair piece quoting Trump’s flunkies claiming that Trump made preparations the night before. But that account doesn’t match the known events, nor does it accord with the long delay in deploying the Guard troops.

In the middle of the impeachment case against Trump is a tacit admission not just that Trump did nothing as he watched a terrorist attack on the Capitol, but no one expected him to be able to do more than Tweet.

The former President’s defense claims, with no proof, that he faithfully executed his duty to protect and defend the Constitution and served to the best of his ability.

To the contrary, at all times, Donald J. Trump fully and faithfully executed his duties as President of the United States, and at all times acted to the best of his ability to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States, while never engaging in any high Crimes or Misdemeanors


It is denied he betrayed his trust as President, to the manifest injury of the people of the United States. Rather, the 45th President of the United States performed admirably in his role as president, at all times doing what he thought was in the best interests of the American people. The 45th President believes and therefore avers that in the United States, the people choose their President, and that he was properly chosen in 2016 and sworn into office in 2017, serving his term to the best of his ability in comportment with his oath of office.

Perhaps that’s right. But if that’s true, it’s a confession that when the nation’s capital came under attack, Trump was helpless to do the least demanded of him as Commander in Chief.

Yes, the case against Trump is deeply rooted in his Tweets inciting terrorists and he should be impeached based just on those and his speech. But along the way, all sides seem to admit that Trump didn’t even consider doing anything as Commander in Chief as the country was attacked.

59 replies
  1. notjonathon says:

    “We are going to smell like you, move like you, and look like you.”

    Imagining the smell brings out the Howard Hughes in me.

    Since you moved to Ireland, your early post appears as my Japanese day is winding down, and I often am one of the first to see it. As one who discovered your work in the old dial-up pre-FDL days (but not having much of substance to add), I’d like to reaffirm my appreciation for your work.

    • Chris.EL says:

      Lo — there is nothing like the beauty of kind, well-written, from-the-heart words of appreciation!

      Well said!

      Adding my thoughts — how valuable Marcy’s day-in, day-out dedication to our country, over here, other side of the pond.

      Here in California, missing photos of June Bug’s Irish countryside romps.

      Popehat had shared his kitten-on-my-shoulder while-I’m-working-at-the-computer photo.

      Didn’t know kitten’s name — so I dubbed him “Spellcheck” — later learned he’s often called “Murderball.”

      FWIW, I’ve got a feeling that kitten is going to be a BIG cat — wear protective slippers …
      Any news on Scotland’s interest in Trump’s golf resort?

  2. JayC says:

    I wonder, and this seems the right place to ask…

    Is it possible that the democrats could hold onto the articles of impeachment until such time as Trump is president again (hopefully never happens, but I can’t rule it out) and then hold a trial (assuming they have control of congress).

    That way we can get around the stupid constitutionality argument about trying a president after he leaves office.

    • Peterr says:

      No. The trial process in the Senate began earlier, when the senators were sworn in as the jurors and they passed a resolution outlining the trial procedures.

      This train is rolling.

      • BobCon says:

        Nothing would stop new articles in a worst case hypothetical future scenario either. Congress gets extremely broad impeachment authority under the Constitution.

    • Steve13209 says:

      This issue needs to be dealt with NOW. Who knows what happens in 4 years (or 2 years or next week). Let this be tried in Congress with evidence and have the Senators vote. It’s one of the few venues where SCOTUS can’t get involved. Their delay and punting on most things against Trump has been disheartening.

      • TooLoose LeTruck says:

        Agreed… we need to deal w/ this NOW.

        I’m in the camp that says, ‘Having gotten this far, this time, they’ll only be emboldened and waiting for another chance, and who knows what will happen next time?’

        This needs to be snuffed out NOW.

  3. SteveL says:

    Missing a word I think, Marcy, before “given,” in the sentence beginning “I especially find Schoen’s certainty about…”

    Yes, the big repeated lie beginning November 4 is an important part of Trump’s impeachable acts, but the most damning is his failure to take appropriate action once the Capitol was under attack. Republican senators are eager—to say the least—to avoid hearing testimony from those with Trump during these hours.

    • PeterS says:

      I don’t think the Big Lie began 4 November, it began much earlier when Trump talked in the summer about a rigged election (rather like he did in 2016).

      • Stacey says:

        Yes, I thoroughly agree! I think what we’ve seen post-2020 election that he lost was EXACTLY what was planned post-2016 when he was essentially planning to loose. It’s obvious he wasn’t planning to win!

        Post-2020 was worse, of course, because he had all the powers of the presidency, but yeah, Roger Stone’s “Stop the Steal” was all ready to go in 2016. He just wanted to be this aggrieved little bitch, sniping from the outside, like he’s been his whole life. Talk about a guy who’s sorry he ever came down that escalator!!!!

    • cavenewt says:


      Republican senators are eager—to say the least—to avoid hearing testimony from those with Trump during these hours.


      Senior administration officials described President Trump as “delighted” and reported that he was “walking around the White House confused about why other people on his team weren’t as excited as he was as you had rioters pushing against Capitol Police trying to get into the building.”

      I’m *really really* hoping the Senate subpoenas these people and can compel them to testify.

      • timbo says:

        Yeah, wouldn’t that be refreshing from the ineffectiveness of the DP lead efforts of the past two years and previous? I do hope they send the Sergeant to get these folks. There’s no excuse acceptable now not to show.

  4. harpie says:

    It’s such a joke that Trump insists on calling himself “The 45th President of the United States”. No other former president does that.

    Maybe Trump did do his job, as he swore, “to the best of my ability”, but if so, that was pretty WEAK!
    Also, I don’t think he ever knew or cared what the actual job entailed.

    And he’s STILL talking about the 2016 election…what a small, small man.

    • P J Evans says:

      He thinks of himself as president of the people who voted for him. The rest of us are enemies to be crushed. The constitution is Article II and the second amendment; everything else is at his whim.

    • TooLoose LeTruck says:

      Not only is he a sore loser… he’s actually a sore winner…

      And I’m not sure I’ve ever seen one of them before… at least not like this.

      • Tracy Lynn says:

        “he’s actually a sore winner…”

        This. He’s definitely a snatching-defeat-from-the jaws-of-victory type of guy.

    • cavenewt says:

      Trump insists on calling himself “The 45th President of the United States”

      We know how he likes lots of words. The most words. The best words.

  5. joel fisher says:

    Does it seem to anyone else that the Article of Impeachment charges behavior going back to the election and the defenders of Trump are focused on his 1/6 speech? No matter, acquittal is assured. Nonetheless, I’m looking forward to the video festival the House Managers will display, but I have no expectations beyond two things:
    1) The demonstrated acts and failures to act by Trump may, well, contribute to an environment of decreasing support for Trump and his grossest supporters;
    2) We may see behavior by others in the form of cell records, emails, and social media posts that are unknown as of now, but might be the talk of the town by next week and included in indictments the week after.

    • PhoneInducedPinkEye says:

      By others you mean lawmakers? I don’t think we will see any private comms for a while. And without a confirmed AG I’m not sure how aggressive the agencies are going to be about pulling on those strings.

    • cavenewt says:

      Does it seem to anyone else that the Article of Impeachment charges behavior going back to the election and the defenders of Trump are focused on his 1/6 speech?

      Yes! It’s easier to argue that there’s no way he could have sent the mob to overtake the Capitol on the spur of the moment, on that one day.

      Since this is a political, not a criminal trial, everything they do will be toward providing cover for Republicans to vote for acquittal. Every argument the defense makes is aimed at T’s base, both the frothy nutjobs and the more conventional supporters who are not very attentive to detail. If it feels right to them in their gut, they will agree with it. Truthiness rules.

  6. dude says:

    So the summary of the argument is:

    Trump isn’t President anymore, so the impeachment is inapplicable.

    But if it were, the defense argues Trump did not specifically instruct the crowd to harm anyone or anything. There is no ‘direct’ evidence (no document or witness) saying “The 45th US President did specifically instruct the crowd or specific persons to break into the Capitol; to kill Nancy Pelosi; or the hang Mike Pence, etc. “). It is a partisan inference at best. The crowd probably read too much into what the President was saying at the time and , incidentally, five people actually got killed and some cops got injured when some windows got broken. What’s a President to do?

    But the impeachment evidence will show Trump behaved like “the dog that didn’t bark”–he appeared to have known what would happen. Whether or not he was directly involved in the plan to physically disrupt the electoral process, he certainly encouraged the necessary outrage among his followers to act lawlessly toward that end. And he was unsurprised by the outcome as though expecting it. But even if we grant he was surprised by the harmful effect of his words, he fumbled a reasonable response that any other competent President would execute. He did not immediately and decisively use his influence to stop the mob, nor act to safeguard the Vice-President nor the members of a co-equal branch of government. That is what a competent President is supposed to do.

    • Ginevra diBenci says:

      I just forced myself to read Castor’s defense of President (Not A “President”) 45. Here it is: Because the framers put an “and” between the two remedies (removal from office / disqualification from holding future office), both must apply. Therefore, Honorable Senators, you are unconstitutional. Good Day!

    • earthworm says:

      to Dude: Cohen the trump attorney remarked, as with all mob bosses, trump doesn’t need to direct in so many words, the lieutenants know what to do.

    • Kevin Bullough says:

      So the summary of the argument is:
      Trump isn’t President anymore, so the impeachment is inapplicable.

      Does that mean that I can go out one night, after my day job, and moonlight as a bank robber, and then when the po-po shows up the next day to arrest me I can say that I’m no longer a bank robber and therefore not guilty of all charges?
      Just asking for a friend.

  7. PeterS says:

    In one way Trump’s pre-election comments were, if such a thing is possible, worse than all his post-election insurrection talk which lead to the events on 6 January. 

    Post-election the (wholly dishonest) narrative has been of massive fraud. This claim, however bogus, does allow for the possibility of a theoretical fair democratic election.

    Before the election the narrative was “the only way I can lose is if the election is rigged”. Saying that, before a single vote was cast or counted, was an unequivocal and total disavowal of democracy: it meant “the only valid election I recognise is one that I win”.

    So post-election there has been the fig leaf of specific (bogus) fraud claims; pre-election there was absolutely no disguise to the anti-democratic sentiment. 

    • Eureka says:

      I agree with your comment here and above that this started way before the election. But worse than mere rhetoric pre-election were his and allies’ attempts to disenfranchise voters and pervert the role of DOJ and other federal resources in supporting his preemptive big lie. For ex., in late May, one of his Fox-guest USA allies politicized a plea wrt an old election fraud case in Philadelphia by publicizing it just ahead of the June 2 primary election. In June, Trump (Campaign, GOP, et al.) first sued Pennsylvania trying to dispense with things like ballot drop boxes that had proved essential to voting in that primary, and trying to alter poll watcher laws (a suit with the potential to change voting laws which was not resolved for purposes of the election until October; voting laws did change that late via a separate suit). In ~ September, DOJ — following Trump (Fox) and McEnany — announced details about “discarded votes for Trump” (in Luzerne Co., PA) early in an investigation which ultimately showed no criminal wrongdoing (after all the propaganda — it was revealed as a mistake pretty quickly — the investigation only closed just before Biden’s inauguration when the USA had stepped down, IIRC). Barr made changes before and after that to DOJ policy which would allow publicizing of incomplete investigations of voter fraud during the election period. (One of Marcy’s recent posts gets into/points to some of the DOJ aspects, though I don’t recall which one.) Etc.

      He put DeJoy in charge of the Post Office and DeJoy dismantled it during a pandemic ahead of an expected-record mail-in vote … [I will again thank Judge Emmet Sullivan for possibly (I bet ‘yes’) saving the 2020 election; his role in history here — ordering the halts to delivery delays and USPS sweeps — is not recognized enough. Update: Gosh! The “USPS” case (Richardson et al. v Trump) is not even on his wiki.]

      It was so apparent that Trump would do anything to subvert the election that experts war-gamed it, see bmaz’ post of July 3rd. [And Trump did try every last one of those tactics, too. LOL, recall how some thought it all “implausible” at the time. We were really just a few critical officeholders in a few key states away from Trump/allies knocking loose a critical brick (an outcome for which the retired generals _actually_ war-gamed, also ahead of the election.). That’s besides the issue of everyone having such low expectations of Trump’s values for democracy that we were nearly defenestrated through the Overton window.]

      During voting — over a period of weeks ahead of election day — his thug-fans harassed voters by photographing/videotaping them turning in their ballots (heeding his calls — made by his campaign and close allies like Rudy and Stone since 2016 — to watch what’s going on / “watch” “the polls”), having loud-honking vehicle parades driving by satellite elections offices or voting centers. [Besides that group who ran a Biden vehicle off the road while chasing Biden’s bus, for which he had to cancel that appearance. “I love it” or however Trump tweeted over one of the menacing videos — that’s in the Impeachment trial docs.]

      It goes on and on.

      Folks from other targeted swing states (and everyone dependent on them due to the EC) will key into other details, like everything (including Trump’s behavior) surrounding the armed takeover of the Michigan Capitol and the plot to kidnap and assassinate Gov. Whitmer. The point I’m making: I “know” the pre-election big lie prep was worse because I carried it then — still do — as a cultural trauma, lived all along in advance of the election (outcome) that Trump and allies would do their best to disenfranchise voters and otherwise subvert a free and fair election (outcome).

  8. 90’s Country says:

    Not quite on topic, but this paragraph from TPM is the best description of Drumpf I’ve seen:
    From TPM Reader SK …

    I’ll start with a tangent: I just learned that you were raised by a biologist. I’m an evolutionary biologist, some of my work is on reproductive behavioral ecology in primates. That evolutionary framework really helps understand Trump’s behavior, like you said! He barely behaves like a modern human (certainly an old testament human), more like a Gorilla or polygynous old world primate like a baboon where dominance is the only currency that matters

      • BobCon says:

        I’m imagining a lot of biologists wouldn’t appreciate that kind of use of evolutionary theory.

        Statements like “dominance is the only currency that matters” makes me doubt this person is really a biologist. Maybe an evolutionary psychologist, but even in that field the ones who say things like that are getting increasing levels of opposition from colleagues. The field is undergoing a lot of self reflection after a lot of really terrible science.

        • Ginevra diBenci says:

          BobCon, I remember when theories like this came on the scene, popularized by E.O.Wilson’s Sociobiology. I was required to teach an essay of his as if it were true science (that is, evidence-based biology rather than anthropological theory) in grad school. Like Freud’s early theories (the ones he later questioned), Wilson’s got a running start as cultural truisms.

          • John Paul Jones says:

            Exactly. Evolutionary psychology to me just looks like sociobiology dressed up in new duds, just as sociobiology was what the psychologists, some of them, turned to when behaviourism went soft on them.

          • Eureka says:

            Sociobiology is in no way an or of “anthropological theory”. E.O. Wilson is (was) a biologist who founded most of his universalist theories based on the behavior of social insects.

            NB: some anthropologists are also evolutionary biologists.

            Evol psych is similarly bunk, adhering (correctly) to neither principles of evolutionary theory nor of psychology.

            • Eureka says:

              An unnumbered fraction of these “theorists” are working directly with scientific racists (sexists, rest of -ists) tucked into other pockets of the (social) sciences. Others, perhaps also lacking in self-awareness, may genuinely believe the received concern-trolling line about so-called is/ought philosophy (‘We’re not telling you how things _should_ be — why that’s not the job of science which is purely objective as the driven snow — we’re just telling you what _is_. Sorry!’). This is of course utter BS when looked at with any rigor under the hood, and is typical of other authoritarian-type reversals of position with ‘actuality’ (aka gaslighting; compare how the GOP presents itself).

              So while these “theorists” throw up their hands to show us they are clean, the popularizing of their agendas arguably helped to fuel the very place we’re in now, with **gestures at WN/authoritarians openly attempting to overthrow our government, glances at related events overseas**, not unlike how later- and post-Victorian (Spencerian) social Darwinist –> eugenics models, diffused well-into everyday thought and practice (from “well-baby” advice to contests at state fairs), scaffolded early 20th century (geo)political events.

              Current-day supremacists swill in their media bubbles and blogs, true, but ‘just-so-story’ clickbait will kill us all.


              Following WWII, scientists from many fields had a great reckoning about wtf they were doing, emphasized instead the common bonds of humanity and worked to repair errors of their disciplinary pasts. Let’s hope those who’d profit from reexamination get through it before another catastrophe.

            • PeterS says:

              A couple of weeks ago I commented that conspiracy theorizing had an evolutionary explanation (mild paranoia kept our ancestors alive better than apathy); out of interest, what branch of science (sic?) was I purporting to speak about?

    • Krisy Gosney says:

      Yes, and an old-world primate (and his old-world primate followers) would not like the new-world female primates taking leadership roles in the the tribe. And that primate and his followers would not like the blending of their tribe with other tribes.

    • Stacey says:

      See if this doesn’t sort of capture it.

      (It’s “This Silverback thinks this intruder in the mirror (his own reflection) comes to steal his wives” on YouTube if that link doesn’t work)

      I’ve always thought this little video PERFECTLY demonstrated Trump’s relationship to the media—seeing himself in the mirror of their feedback and trying to intimidate the mirror to get a different result. Fascinating!

    • Mitch Neher says:

      Not gorillas. Lemurs, I say. All Republicans are Lemurs. All Trump Troupers are Lemurs. The QAnon Cray-Cray Crowd . . . Lemurs, one and all.

      Don’t take my word for it. Do a key word search on the terms “stink-battle” and “lemur-ball” and find out “who they really are.” A Stink-Battling Lemur Ball. That’s who they’ve always been.

  9. Savage Librarian says:

    Crank It Up

    Regress a mascot to mastodon,
    For primal Boys who won’t be men,
    Promote a kooky QAnon,
    Stir it up, blame Pence, and then,

    Lead it with a come on,
    and a wicked, wild baton,
    Orchestrated through a Pentagon,
    Embedded rogues in on the con.

    Chattering like a charlatan,
    Donald, with maniacal grin upon
    his gleeful, gloating face, “in fun”,
    stalked for his next pawn.

    But now he rues his new phenomenon:
    He lost his lexicon.
    We need a new emoticon:
    “Tell the hateful crank, begone!”

    • JVO says:

      It’s also a fallacy – he is well and damn capable of doing FAR MORE when he wants to. He was not UNABLE, he was UNWILLING to do his job when confronted with the situation. HE CHOSE TO NOT HONOR HIS OATH! Fvck him! He is GUILTY AF! Reference Adam Schiff’s closing arguments in the last Impeachment Trial.

      • Xboxershorts says:

        You give his cognitive abilities far more credit than I’m willing to give them.

        I honestly believe his brain is broken.

        On top of being a totally toxic narcissist his entire life.

        • ThoughtMail says:

          As with some few other people in my life, for the past 5 years I’ve been debating with myself about his psychological profile. I had, at first, thought that he was autistic, with other comorbidities (which I now realize are legion). I am forced to conclude, as you, that his mind is broken and chaotic, beyond redemption.

          But my first impression, before he was “elected” (take that as you will), caused me to reevaluate a person from my past, whom I had concluded was the one-and-only “perfect asshole” that I had ever met. After much soul searching, I had to conclude that I had been mistaken about the earlier one: he was only a picknicker.

    • harpie says:

      From the letter:

      An Open Letter to Members of the U.S. Senate: […]
      On January 6, the former President broke America’s 230-year legacy of the peaceful transition of power when he incited a mob to disrupt the counting of electoral college votes. Six people died. A Capitol Police officer—one of our co-workers who guards and greets us every day—was beaten to death. The attack on our workplace was inspired by lies told by the former president and others about the results of the election in a baseless, months-long effort to reject votes lawfully cast by the American people. […]

      • Ginevra diBenci says:

        Thanks, harpie, for including this. I’m curious–do you know whom they’re counting when they refer to “six people” being dead? Most MSM coverage has stuck with five, which excludes the two Capitol PD officers who subsequently died by suicide. If the staffers are including one of the latter but not the other, does anyone know why?

  10. klynn says:

    Does the “…to the best of his ability…” language open the door to examine “his ability” in terms of whether he was mentally fit to be POTUS at the time? Is this language a set up for an “unfit” argument from Trump’s lawyer? (IANAL thus the question.)

  11. dude says:

    Paging Bmaz:

    “The U.S. Dept. of Justice is weighing the use of “RICO” laws, designed to prosecute Mafia bosses behind racketeering crimes, to charge far right group members who had a part in Donald Trump’s January 6 attempted coup at the Capitol, Reuters reports.”

    Check One
    1. Yeah, yeah—DOJ considers all kinds of things.
    2. I’ll believe it when I see it in filings.
    3. Reuters is full of it.
    4. Go visit some other website.
    5. Applies to groups like Proud Bois. Does nothing about Trump.

  12. Stacey says:

    My jaw hit the floor while listening to All In With Chris Hayes last night on MSNBC. He was remarking on the odd ‘passive voice’ of Trump’s defense lawyers on this point: “It is denied that the 45th President engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the United States.”

    Is that type of language a way that an attorney can walk the fine line of lying/not lying in court proceedings? Like Trump wants them to say the election was stolen from him which they can’t do without their own pot of hot water. Is that type of passive language like “It is asserted that the election was stolen…” Not saying “THEY” are asserting it but that it IS ASSERTED, does that get them anywhere?

    • timbo says:

      Yep. WTF is that? Seems like some pretty weak sauce if you want a court to take you seriously (besides the misspellings in the title of the brief itself)! WTF do they believe is the case then? It’ll be interesting to see trained litigators examine these clowns.

      • skua says:

        weak sauce
        A very low emotion approach from Trump’s lawyers – this is inconsistent with Trump using them to inflame his base. I wonder how they got Trump to agree. Maybe the fires of insurrection are being smothered under a wet blanket.

  13. skua says:

    Warning: Truisms and poorly evidenced assumptions ahead.

    If buying into the Trumpist delusion is well modelled by a dead fish which is kept below the surface of the water when the physical forces taking it down are greater than the physical forces taking it up then the current lower intensity of Trump/Murdoch propaganda resulting in reduced fear, anger and the need for reality-denying confabulations in Trumpists may have their buy-in floating upwards towards the surface (the boundary between delusion and commonsense). The Repub Senators approach to the trial is relatively low emotion (compared to #stopthesteal), a claimed technical (mis)interpretation. Additonally the President (46) is presiding in a normal manner, the WH appears normal, a pandemic is now being dealt with in a normal manner, DoJ is appearing normal, law-breakers are being duly processed.
    If this lower arousing of trumpists continues over the next year say, we might see Trump’s support significantly diminish.

  14. GKJames says:

    Any news yet of communications on 6 Jan between WH and Pentagon after the latter got a request for troops?

Comments are closed.