Seth Abramson

Seth Abramson @SethAbramson

48/ Alternately or in addition, HJ6C could speed up its deconfliction procedures with DOJ to hasten the seemingly inevitable Eastman indictment—putting a squeeze on him to cooperate sooner rather than later—or it could *subpoena* Ginni Thomas the *second* she balks (as she will). — PolitiTweet.org

Seth Abramson @SethAbramson

47/ Speaker Pelosi could decide *right now* that if a) Ginni Thomas stonewalls Congress despite agreeing to speak to it or b) speaks to HJ6C investigators and lies or refuses to answer key questions, it will *force* Congress to open up an impeachment *investigation*—but will she? — PolitiTweet.org

Seth Abramson @SethAbramson

46/ (Keep in mind an impeachment *investigation* is *not* Articles of Impeachment or an impeachment trial. It’s just what it says: an investigation—opened on just the sort of reasonable basis Congress already has to open it—to determine if Articles of Impeachment are warranted.) — PolitiTweet.org

Seth Abramson @SethAbramson

45/ I’m going to admit I’ve more questions than answers right now. How to handle Thomas? An impeachment *investigation* should’ve been opened long ago, surely—it’s inexplicable that Pelosi is allowing only one select committee at a time—but it’s not clear that will happen at all. — PolitiTweet.org

Seth Abramson @SethAbramson

RT @SethAbramson: (🔐) BREAKING NEWS: Trump Attorney John Eastman Responds to Allegations of Seditious Conspiracy with the Most Problematic… — PolitiTweet.org

Seth Abramson @SethAbramson

44/ Breaking news reports on this will delve into topics other January 6 reports don’t—who is Kenneth Chesebro? What is TEXAS v. PENNSYLVANIA? What is the Gohmert Lawsuit? What does the phrase “a Bush v. Gore-style injunction” mean?—but that doesn’t make them any less critical. — PolitiTweet.org

Seth Abramson @SethAbramson

43/ So hopefully everyone now understands the stakes in having independent media outlets like PROOF—which has been almost exclusively covering the January 6 investigation for a year and a half—open up this new front in the January 6 investigation as it enters its last six months. — PolitiTweet.org

Seth Abramson @SethAbramson

42/ The only avenue now known is interviewing Ginni Thomas—which is how you know she’ll do just as Jim Jordan, did and speak regularly to conservative media outlets about how *much* she wants to help out the January 6 investigation right up until she tells America to f*ck itself. — PolitiTweet.org

Seth Abramson @SethAbramson

41/ So you tell me: who’ll investigate the Court? When? How? To what end? And how will a Committee facing disbanding at the hands of GOP insurrectionists in the House get testimony from those who know about the Trump Legal-SCOTUS pipeline—one of whom pleaded the Fifth 100+ times? — PolitiTweet.org

Seth Abramson @SethAbramson

40/ And if, in the midst of this, we have a compromised Supreme Court—with a Justice whose wife is allegedly a coup co-conspirator who co-wrote Trump’s “Green Bay Sweep” coup plot, but who will not recuse himself from *any* January 6 cases—we could be looking at even more mayhem. — PolitiTweet.org

Seth Abramson @SethAbramson

39/ But we are running out of time. DOJ will, I believe, indict Trump, but it cannot do so quickly enough. It will not happen this summer or before Trump announces his 2024 candidacy. It will happen in 2023, and then Trump will use his megaphone to incite violence across America. — PolitiTweet.org

Seth Abramson @SethAbramson

38/ By the same token, major media is—candidly—so far behind in understanding the positively Boschean dimensions of the January 6 timeline and (sub)narratives, which dwarf in both depth and number anything we saw during Watergate, that it will be little help in the months ahead. — PolitiTweet.org

Seth Abramson @SethAbramson

37/ And this is why I wrote such a long and complex report at PROOF about how the Trump Legal coup plot *exploited* its apparent SCOTUS backchannel—and on the extraordinary lengths it has gone to since to hide it. Because the HJ6C is unlikely to *ever* get any testimony on this. — PolitiTweet.org

Seth Abramson @SethAbramson

36/ Jordan told America he’d nothing to hide—and he was able to hold onto that line for *well* over 6 months before disclosing that he would give testimony about January 6 over his dead body (figuratively speaking). Ginni Thomas can *easily* stonewall until the GOP has Congress. — PolitiTweet.org

Seth Abramson @SethAbramson

35/ Now we have Ginni Thomas telling Tucker Carlson’s blog THE DAILY CALLER that she’d be only *too happy* to sit for an hours-long conversation with a Democrat-led select committee her party is about to destroy utterly in 6 months. Who believes that? Did you believe Jim Jordan? — PolitiTweet.org

Seth Abramson @SethAbramson

34/ The House January 6 Committee tried to ask Eastman about that channel in a sworn deposition. Eastman said—100+ times—that answering questions of that sort would incriminate him. More *must* be done with and about this than simply making it a sidelight of a hearing on Pence. — PolitiTweet.org

Seth Abramson @SethAbramson

33/ Eastman apparently had a leak channel he profoundly trusted from the Thomas/Alito camp—a channel he’s still lying to protect, and quite obviously so, in his most recent Substack essay—that he believed could help turn 2 votes into 4 just when Trump needed that magic to happen. — PolitiTweet.org

Seth Abramson @SethAbramson

32/ We now know—as is fully sourced in the report atop this thread—that at least the first two of the three Dobbs leaks were far-right Thomas/Alito camp leaks designed to pressure Kavanaugh/Barrett to join Thomas and Alito. But this is not the first time this maneuver was sought. — PolitiTweet.org

Seth Abramson @SethAbramson

31/ Moreover, what sort of *crazy* magic could turn 2 Justices you know you have on your side based on leaks (Thomas, Alito) into the *4* Justices you need to get you *injunctive relief* in advance of oral argument? How can a leak turn 2 Justices into 4? Well—just look at Dobbs. — PolitiTweet.org

Seth Abramson @SethAbramson

30/ This new PROOF report explains why this is in fact *exactly* how Trump Legal saw things post-election. They didn’t believe they needed 5 votes, and didn’t think they could *get* 5 votes. But they could get 1 Justice to declare an issue a “political question” in a declination. — PolitiTweet.org

Seth Abramson @SethAbramson

29/ What if all you need is for the Court to agree to *hear arguments* on a case, because that could give you injunctive relief as you seek to push back a session of Congress? That only requires 4 votes. Or what if all you need is a *note* attached by 1 Justice to a declination? — PolitiTweet.org

Seth Abramson @SethAbramson

28/ If you understand the basic fact that there are 9 Justices on the Supreme Court and you need 5 to win a case, that last tweet seems *incomprehensible* at first blush. How could you win a case with fewer than five votes? Answer: if a win doesn’t require a ruling in your favor. — PolitiTweet.org

Seth Abramson @SethAbramson

27/ The evidence now suggests that Team Trump believed there was and would be a backchannel (and maybe more than one) between SCOTUS and Trump Legal, *and*—and this is where it gets even more confusing—Trump Legal did *not* need five votes on any case it brought before the Court. — PolitiTweet.org

Seth Abramson @SethAbramson

26/ So what was the operational control Don Jr. felt—by a month after Ginni’s friends Cleta and John were on Trump’s SCOTUS litigation team—his dad had with respect to SCOTUS? Clearly it was rather more than just the fact that Trump appointed three Justices. That’s not “control.” — PolitiTweet.org

Seth Abramson @SethAbramson

25/ (Not for nothing, Eastman was brought aboard Trump’s legal team in late summer 2020 at the demand of none other than Cleta Mitchell—a Trump lawyer and Ginni Thomas’ best friend. So Ginni orchestrated John, a longtime family friend, becoming a *second* conduit on Trump Legal.) — PolitiTweet.org

Seth Abramson @SethAbramson

24/ We’ve seen, since Don Jr. uttered those anti-democratic words via private text 20 months ago, that Team Trump didn’t just have implicit, passive sway over several branches of government, but a *plan* on how to use it. Remember, Eastman came aboard Team Trump in *summer 2020*. — PolitiTweet.org

Seth Abramson @SethAbramson

23/ Perhaps journalists dropped this story because it seemed obvious: Don Jr. just meant SCOTUS was in significant part appointed by Trump, right? And that the battleground states had GOP legislatures? Sure—and no. Because “operational control” means more than passive authority. — PolitiTweet.org

Seth Abramson @SethAbramson

22/ So—based on how the evidence has come in—there’s no great surprise about why Don Jr. was so certain his father would get a second term, and why Trump was so inexplicably enraged when the operational control his son must have been telling him (like Meadows) existed fell apart. — PolitiTweet.org

Seth Abramson @SethAbramson

21/ And one could add an asterisk to denote a *fourth* option—as the Trumps’ operational control over the White House, SCOTUS, and state legislatures in the battleground states *could* have ultimately thrown the election to Congress in a by-delegation vote the *GOP would’ve won*. — PolitiTweet.org

Seth Abramson @SethAbramson

20/ In America, there’s one path to winning an election: voters. But Don Jr. appeared (with that word “all”) to be referencing at least *3*. The evidence suggests this is what he was referring to: ▪️ Federal Executive Branch ▪️ State Legislative Branch ▪️ Federal Judicial Branch — PolitiTweet.org