Thread. Civil war? This is nonsense and not helpful. It assumes we don't have agency. Anyone who goes from Defcon 5 to 1 like this is lacking in analysis. Just lazy. Am I worried? Of course, so plan. Do I think there is a likelihood Trump follows his words? #homelandsecurity 1/ https://twitter.com/thehill/status/1309458392994533379

Low likelihood but high consequence event so we shouldn't be shy calling him on it, nor "ratchet it down." The most likely scenario still is a peaceful transition of power to Biden with violence by radicalized Trump supporters who listen to his words. #stochasticterrorism
2/

But between Trump's words, his campaigns actions and Friedman's civil war, mayors and governors are on notice and they are doing a lot in anticipation of both unlawful vigilantes as well as "color of law" deployment. Trainings and briefings and comms strategies are ongoing. 3/

This includes everything from command posts for election violence monitoring, urban curfews, crowd control plans with National Guard, states of emergency to protect right to vote. But "civil war" talk is the same as Trump's threats of Insurrection Act. Don't lose our heads. 4/

A great part @bartongellman terrific and scary piece, which is a scenario we should take seriously, in @theatlantic is this paragraph. We have agency.

https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2020/11/what-if-trump-refuses-concede/616424/

5/

We need to be ready. A lot of us are trying to plan for that with public entities. Trump is radicalizing; that's all he knows what to do. We don't have to reply in kind. This "civil war" talk is just laziness, and undermines those who are concerned but also planning. /6

And if there is a peaceful-ish transition, and a change of leadership, I'm on the record now so stop with the shock -- Trump will not show up to the inauguration. His final show of leadership. You can plan for that, too. 7/7