(🧵) LIVE THREAD: I’m live-tweeting the 10AM ET House January 6 Committee primetime hearing from 9AM on. I’m a lawyer, journalist and historian who’s been contacted by the Committee and whose J6-focused substack, PROOF, the Committee has cited. I hope you will RETWEET and follow.
1/ At times I may make reference in this thread to evidence previously published in the nearly 200 reports on January 6 that appear at PROOF (link below). About half of these reports are free at PROOF, while the other half are for subscribers ($5/month). http://sethabramson.substack.com 
2/ This live thread is of course free. If, as you follow along between now and 12:30PM today, you feel moved to use the tip jar in my bio (see image below for location) I appreciate it, even as I add that it is—as ever—100% optional. I’ll do the best work I can today either way.
3/ Beginning at 9AM, I’ll be offering critical logistical, legal, and historical framing for today’s hearing, as well as outlining what to expect from the hearing and how it fits into the larger work of the House January 6 Committee (and future work by the Department of Justice).
4/ Three witnesses—there’s likely a fourth—who’ll testify today over two live witness panels in the two-hour-plus hearing:

▪️ Ben Ginsberg, Republican attorney and election expert
▪️ Chris Stirewalt, former Fox News political analyst
▪️ Bill Stepien, 2020 Trump campaign official
5/ Ginsberg was a far-right election-law lawyer for Republican brass in the 2000s, assisting the party with racist, anti-democratic voter suppression efforts and other election shenanigans that were horrifying but pale in comparison to what we see from the Republican Party today.
6/ Though many of us haven’t forgotten Ginsberg’s odious work in the 2000s, the broad consensus in Washington seems to be that he redeemed himself by doing the bare minimum any person of conscience could do in the 2010s: vocally opposing the excesses of the Trump administration.
7/ Stirewalt was fired by Fox News for being behind the network’s supposedly “early” call of Arizona for Joe Biden in November 2020. Of course we now know his call was entirely correct—but also that Trumpism “owns” FNC, which is why Stirewalt was terminated for telling the truth.
8/ As an ex-Trump campaign official, Stepien is clearly a Trump partisan with few scruples—imagine the lack of moral fiber it took to work for Trump in 2020—but his appearance before the Committee continues its trend of calling witnesses Trump cannot say are Democratic partisans.
9/ The purpose of today’s hearing seems, on the surface, simple: to confirm that literally every single person in Trump’s circle of campaign advisers on Election Night 2020 either had told him he was going to lose before that night or did so at the time or immediately afterward.
10/ The idea here is that Trump was unambiguously told to expect an election loss, then willingly chose to bring in people from outside his campaign—folks with little understanding of election data and fewer scruples—to tell him that he should have won despite him knowing better.
11/ Two people Trump brought in immediately—amoral sycophants who had much to gain by lying to Trump—were Rudy Giuliani and Sidney Powell.

But here’s the thing: understanding the names involved here is far less important than understanding what the Committee is really up to now.
12/ The Committee has gone about the hearings, so far, as though they’re federal prosecutors offering America an opening statement and preliminary case-in-chief in the case of United States v. Donald Trump—they’re squarely focused on the specific statutes they say Trump violated.
13/ Several of those statutes are fraud statutes which—like any criminal statute—contain a “mental state” (in legal terms, “mens rea”; in colloquial terms, “criminal intent”) prosecutors must prove. Sample statutory mental states include, among a few others you may have heard...
14/ ...“purposefully,” “willfully,” “knowingly”, “recklessly,” and “negligently.” The upshot is that you cannot be convicted of a crime if the prosecutor cannot show that you were in a certain state of mind as you committed the criminal act. The same goes for Trump and fraud.
MID-THREAD UPDATE2/ I’ll say as a former criminal defense lawyer and federal criminal investigator that if you’ve ever occupied either of those roles your Occam’s Razor explanation for Stepien backing out of testifying is federal criminal witness tampering by Trump or his agents.
MID-THREAD UPDATE3/ Obviously if there were an active DOJ investigation of Trump—which Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA) recently said he sees no evidence of yet—the FBI *would* be looking into Stepien dropping out of the hearing, especially given Trump’s long history of witness tampering.
MID-THREAD UPDATE4/ It would be easy enough for a Trump agent—whether a family member, aide, adviser, attorney, or associate—to point out to Stepien that he will never work in GOP politics again if he testifies. I expect Trump always planned to lean on witnesses once disclosed.
MID-THREAD UPDATE5/ Now, it’s always possible there is a real family emergency for Stepien—I’m not saying otherwise. I’m just saying that it should be looked into; the timing is incredibly coincidental; if there’s an emergency, Stepien can/will/should reschedule his testimony...
MID-THREAD UPDATE6/ ...Trump has a history of witness tampering; Stepien’s the first known Trump partisan to be scheduled to give live testimony, so he’s the first person Trump would be in a position to tamper with; and testifying may indeed destroy Stepien’s professional career.
MID-THREAD UPDATE7/ If Stepien’s wife is indeed in labor as is now being reported, most importantly I wish her and Bill all the best and I hope that all goes well at the hospital. Secondly, we must take two things from the situation: a) Stepien must agree to reschedule to show...
MID-THREAD UPDATE8/ ...that—as now seems to be the case—this cancellation had nothing to do with an unwillingness to testify. Secondly, it calls into question leaking live witnesses before they appear. The Committee must continue to do all it can to keep close its witness list.
15/ Returning to the critical framing that I was discussing in Tweet #14, the Committee today is working to establish Trump’s criminal intent when he began defrauding the United States—and possibly committing wire fraud, election fraud, and other forms of fraud—via the “Big Lie.”
16/ Trump defenders will point to the fact that Trump has *always* said he *believes* he won, and also (less charitably to him but with the same result) that he is exactly the sort of lifelong narcissist who could convince himself of something favorable to him that is delusional.
17/ The problem here—and the Committee *must* explain this to America—is the legal doctrine of “willful ignorance.” Simply put, you *can’t* escape the establishment of criminal intent by deliberately keeping yourself ignorant of the truth of a given situation. That happened here.
18/ So Trump *loses* the defense of “earnest belief” to a fraud indictment if the Committee now (and DOJ later) can show that a *reasonable person* in his position would have understood himself to have lost the 2020 presidential election based on all the information he received.
19/ Now you see why today’s hearing is so key. The HJ6C will show that, *from the jump*, *all* the credible information Trump had—that a *reasonable person* in his position would trust—would have told him he was going to lose and did lose, and he sought willful ignorance instead.
20/ Journalists habitually *falsely* imply Trump’s sociopathy, narcissism, and penchant for self-delusion aids him in escaping criminal liability for any offense that requires the “highest” mental state (“purposefully”).

Not surprisingly, our justice system is smarter than that.
21/ So info that may *seem* esoteric—like the known fact that certain “blue” cities always report votes late; that a “blue shift” in vote tallies was *expected* before Election Night 2020 because absentee ballots skew blue and get counted late—is actually *critical* information.
22/ Trump had the best election advisers and data analysts money could buy—or at least the very best ones one of America’s two major political parties has produced—and he was *not legally entitled* to decide that he knew better than everything they were (unanimously) telling him.
23/ Put another way, no reasonable person would’ve acted as Trump did or believed what he did, and Trump can’t defend himself against fraud claims—or he can, but not successfully—by claiming that he earnestly believed something *no reasonable person* could or would have believed.
24/ And of course Trump went well beyond self-delusion. He pushed for Stirewalt to get fired; he backed conspiracy theories without any evidence whatsoever; he persisted in lying to America after he lost lawsuit after lawsuit. All of this is future evidence in a *criminal* trial.
MID-THREAD UPDATE/ The hearing has been pushed back 30-45 minutes. There’s no surprise or mystery—or incompetence—in this; it’s what you’d normally expect would occur if a witness backs out minutes before a hearing begins.

The HJ6C must reorganize its plan for today, that’s all.
25/ Per CNN, the plan for today was two live witness panels interspersed with depo excerpts and summaries from HJ6C members. With Stepien out—and again, he should reschedule—that plan is discombobulated a bit, as only one panel may be possible or a slight shift in topic required.
26/ While the HJ6C has no say in DOJ indicting Trump, a) it’s presenting evidence of a quality/volume that establishes “probable cause” at a minimum—the standard for indictment, though prosecutors don’t indict until they feel they can prove a case beyond a “reasonable doubt”—...
27/ ...and b) evidence like what will be presented today puts real public pressure on DOJ to do something—not political pressure, as I do not think Garland is susceptible to that, but *evidentiary* pressure because the public now knows how strong the case against Donald Trump is.
28/ To be clear, based on the evidence I’ve published at PROOF, some of which has been cited by the H6JC and which I know the HJ6C follows, the evidence against Trump—who’s now just a citizen like you or me—is at the “beyond a reasonable doubt” level, not merely “probable cause.”
MID-STREAM UPDATE/ MSNBC is reporting that the HJ6C is going to splice together video of Stepien’s recorded testimony rather than reschedule his live testimony—which I understand but would also say gives an incentive for future live witnesses to back out to protect their careers.
MID-STREAM UPDATE2/ Stepien is a former 2020 Trump campaign manager who very much wants a future in far-right GOP politics—he is actually working hard to defeat Liz Cheney in Congress. I have no doubt his wife is in labor, but he also has many reasons to not want to testify live.
MID-STREAM UPDATE3/ Keep in mind Trump didn’t just lie about the facts of the 2020 election; he lied about *what he’d been told*, which is key because witnesses—voluntary ones or, like Stepien, subpoenaed ones—can therefore contradict Trump’s lies in the most direct way possible.
29/ Another note about the timing of today’s hearing: some Supreme Court decisions are likely to be handed down today—we don’t know which ones—so that *could* distract from the hearing, depending on the timing of the SCOTUS releases. We will watch for that as the hearing unfolds.
30/ Yet another note to make is that DOJ has publicly asked Congress to hand over its interview transcripts, so we don’t have to speculate on whether DOJ is watching the HJ6C’s opening-statement-like presentation—it is. Apparently Garland has said that he’s watching the hearings.
31/ So as you see deposition excerpts in these hearings and think (perhaps) they’re less powerful than live testimony, realize that they’re not: DOJ will review both depo transcripts *and* live testimony transcripts, meaning both types of testimony arrive at DOJ in the same form.
32/ The fourth witness scheduled for today—who’ll now be the third live witness we know of, after Stepien pulled out due to a family emergency—is B.J. Pak, ex-U.S. Attorney for Northern Georgia. There have long been allegations that Trump pushed Pak out of his job post-election.
33/ As most of you know because of Trump’s now-infamous recorded phone call with Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger—who will also testify before the HJ6C a bit later on—Trump worked particularly hard to (illegally) overturn the accurate 2020 election result in Georgia.
34/ Trump’s M.O. (modus operandi) is clear: when he finds that someone is an obstacle to his schemes, he either pushes them out, fires them, tries to oppose their re-election, witness tampers, libels, slanders, or seeks to intimidate them. B.J. Pak *and* Stirewalt fit this maxim.
35/ The same goes for Raffensperger, who Trump unsuccessfully tried to unseat in Georgia’s GOP primary for Secretary of State using one of his congressional co-conspirators—who was at the December 21, 2020 White House meeting to plan January 6—an insurrectionist named Jody Hice.
36/ It’s worth remembering that Georgia and Arizona were the two states Stop the Steal—run by Ali Alexander, Alex Jones and Roger Stone—were most active in, and the two states Trump and a co-conspirator like, say, Ginni Thomas were most active in. Georgia even saw a 1/6 dry run.
37/ That’s right—Alexander and Jones led a late 2020 march on Georgia’s Capitol in which they went inside and (some of their people) wanted to occupy the Capitol to pressure GA lawmakers. And who did Trump thereafter ask to lead the march on the *US* Capitol? Alexander and Jones.
38/ So the HJ6C will focus on Georgia—and hopefully Arizona—because it was in those states that we are *most* likely to find coordination between the White House and the paramilitary-exploiting Stop the Steal enterprise (Georgia also had that January special election happening).
39/ But even more than Arizona, Trump gave the full-court press post-election in Georgia—a loss that likely angered him the most because it’s a Southern state where he thought his white-supremacist rhetoric surely would give him a win. He was also likely enraged that the work...
40/ ...of a smart, talented, charismatic Black woman—Stacey Abrams—had likely won the day for Democrats by increasing Black turnout. He knew Georgia was very close, a special election was coming, it was the most surprising blue “pick-up”... IOW he had many reasons to focus on GA.
41/ Trump’s *specific* plot in Georgia—to unseat BJ Pak as US Attorney in the jurisdiction where his ridiculous claims about “warehouses” of fraudulent ballots unfolded, ballots DHS wouldn’t investigate despite the efforts of Trump’s Willard Hotel war room—is especially relevant.
42/ The Pak situation is especially relevant because of other evidence we’ll shortly hear via the HJ6C hearings about Trump’s efforts to replace Pak’s ultimate boss—the United States Attorney General—in order to further push fraudulent election-fraud claims he *knew* were false.
43/ What Trump did to Pak mirrored what he tried to do in DC with AG Jeffrey Rosen (after AG Barr resigned, essentially in protest of Trump’s election lies). So what we have here is a clear M.O. that establishes that Trump had a plan or scheme—involving others—to commit fraud.
44/ Consider too the breaking news we’re hearing about Trump’s personal lawyer Rudy Giuliani experiencing even *more* bar discipline for his—now-self-admitted—lack of due diligence in making false claims of election fraud. If Giuliani did no research, how could Trump believe him?
45/ Again we return to the idea that no *reasonable person* would’ve believed what Trump did—not just because of everything his advisers and analysts and far-right media liaisons were telling him, but because even the lawyer he chose to listen to had *no evidence* to show to him.
46/ One of the witnesses (Stirewalt) has now been seated, so I expect the hearing to begin somewhat shortly, *approximately* 45 minutes late as we were previously informed would be the case (due to the unexpected lack of Stepien on the first live witness panel). Stay tuned.
47/ The Committee has just arrived, so we will get the opening gavel very soon.
48/ The HJ6C chair, Rep. Bennie Thompson (D-MS), is outlining the *normal* way of challenging election results: checking the data and going to court. He is noting that Trump chose a different path as part of coordinating a conspiracy to overturn an election he knew he had lost.
49/ Rep. Zoe Lofgren (D-CA) will apparently be running the live witness panel following an opening statement by Rep. Liz Cheney (R-WY).

Rep. Cheney is speaking now, reminding America that the HJ6C is showing that Trump had a *seven-point plan* to overturn a democratic election.
50/ Cheney says we will hear more from AG Barr (in recorded depo), other DOJ officials, and Trump campaign officials at today’s hearing. She says the Committee will show that Trump’s advisers told him Biden votes would be coming in late, and that counting would take several days.
51/ She says Trump chose to listen to an "inebriated" Rudy Giuliani instead, and accept deranged conspiracy theories about winning. She also notes that Trump had defied advisers by telling his voters to only vote in person—a situation that helped *create* the "blue shift."
52/ First witness (depo) is Trump lawyer Eric Hershman, who says he never saw evidence the "Dominion conspiracy" was real.

Second witness (depo) is Matt Morgan, Trump campaign lawyer, who says he found no legal challenges would change the results (Marc Short/Greg Jacobs agreed).
53/ I like that Cheney keeps emphasizing that these hearings only include "some" of the HJ6C’s evidence. That’s so, so critical: as wildly compelling as the evidence we are getting is, it is only a *small part* of what the Committee has, i.e. what it can show in just a few hours.
54/ Rep. Lofgren is speaking now, emphasizing that 1) Donald Trump *knew* his claims were false, and 2) Trump used his lies to *raise tens of millions of dollars* from those who believed his lies. It is so important for the HJ6C to underscore that the Big Lie was also wire fraud.
55/ Rep. Lofgren is doing this exactly the right way: proceeding chronologically.

She shows, using Trump’s own words, that even *before the election* he said he was going to claim fraud (and made a series of false claims that he would then repeat after he had lost the election).
56/ It’s remarkable how disciplined the Committee is: almost every sentence refers to how Trump organized a conspiracy—it’s strongly implied, though never explicitly said, a criminal conspiracy—and how every action Trump took was (legally) an act in furtherance of the conspiracy.
57/ Stirewalt has been sworn in. The Committee is now showing a video of Ivanka Trump talking about Election Night.
58/ A video of Jared Kushner’s depo is now being shown. And video of Trump’s most trusted comms adviser—besides Hope Hicks—Jason Miller. And Bill Stepien. The Committee is establishing what was going on behind the scenes of the Trump campaign on election night in November 2020.
59/ And now we have depo video from Rudy Giuliani. Wow. We’re getting—through the splicing of a large number of depo videos from top Trump advisers (and family members)—a blow-by-blow, first-person account of what happened in that room with Trump on Election Night. It’s riveting.
60/ The HJ6C is establishing that Rudy was drunk when he pitched to Trump’s team just having Trump (falsely) declare victory. No one on Trump’s team—no one—was making that suggestion because (and it seems they made it clear to Trump) they’d no evidence to support a victory claim.
61/ Stepien recommended Trump simply say it was too early to call the race. Ivanka felt the race could not be called that night. Miller said they needed to wait for more data. Giuliani was telling everyone that if they didn’t think Trump should declare victory, they were weak.
62/ Now we see what Trump actually: he declared the election a fraud and declared victory.

Stirewalt confirms that Trump had no basis to declare victory. Stepien says, via depo, that Trump had no basis to declare victory.
63/ Stirewalt is now being questioned by Lofgren, and he’s explaining that Fox News made clear to its viewers that the Biden votes would come in later on Election Night, so it would *look* like Trump was winning when those early numbers were in fact "irrelevant" (a "red mirage").
64/ AG Barr again (via depo) notes that Trump began claiming fraud before anything had even been looked at. He says Trump was basing his false claims on the "blue shift"—even though *everyone* had been saying "for weeks" that this is *exactly* what would happen on Election Night.
65/ Stepien—via depo—says he was clear with Trump about how the votes would come in on Election Night and after, i.e. that it’d start with a red mirage and move to a blue shift. Stepien said the results would take a while to know and couldn’t be known early on on Election Night.
66/ The HJ6C ingeniously establishes that Trump knowingly created the problem he’d complain of on Election Night by spending months telling his voters not to use absentee ballots. Stepien says he and Kevin McCarthy urged Trump in summer ’20 to stop discouraging mail-in balloting.
67/ Stirewalt has been an on-air personality—so he’s an excellent public speaker and a great witness. He says that Fox News had the best election-prediction mechanism of any network on Election Night and that he is extremely proud of FNC making the right call and making it first.
68/ Stirewalt says the decision inside Fox News to call Arizona for Joe Biden was *unanimous*.
69/ Stirewalt says recounts only switch hundreds of votes, not thousands, so after AZ was called—and even 2 of the other 4 major battleground states (GA, NV, MI, PA)—Trump’s chances of winning were virtually zero and this would’ve been clear to anyone with an election background.
70/ Stepien (via depo) says he told Trump after Election Night that his maximum chances of winning were now between "5%" and "10%", taking into account every possible recount, every possible legal challenge, and so on. Stepien says he made clear to Trump how long those odds were.
71/ Bill Stepien—Trump campaign manager—says, via recorded depo, that Trump’s team (led by Trump campaign lawyer Alex Cannon) could find no credible evidence of problems in vote counts in Arizona. We already know the trend we will find here: Team Trump had *no* evidence of fraud.
72/ Once the 5-10% chance Stepien referenced fell to zero, Trump fired Justin Clark and other Trump campaign lawyers and brought in the crazies—Giuliani/Powell. Essentially, Trump had a whole team tell him it had professionally researched his claims and when they gave him news...
73/ ...he did not want to hear, he fired them all, making it clear that he was looking to get information that supported things he had already said publicly *whether that information was accurate or not*.

This sort of conduct would *not* be a valid defense to a fraud indictment.
74/ Stepien describes a situation in which Trump developed two distinct teams of post-election researchers, Team Normal—which had Stepien—and Rudy’s team, which Stepien adjudged was neither honest nor professional and which he wanted nothing to do with. Trump fired *Team Normal*.
75/ The Committee is playing clips of the deranged, false, wholly unsupported claims being made by Giuliani and Powell on TV and in pressers. The Committee is also using Giuliani and Powell depos to establish how absurd their views are. Eric Hershmann calls their theories "nuts."
76/ Jared Kushner says—via depo—that he told Trump not to go down the route he did. Matt Morgan and AG Barr both confirm they told Trump not to go down that road; Barr said "I didn't want to be a part of it [Rudy's claims]", as they were "bullshit" and are one reason he resigned.
77/ And now the Committee notes that Sidney Powell, when she was sued civilly for her absurd election-related claims, conceded (in writing) that no reasonable person could possibly have taken her post-election claims of election fraud as accurate. And yet, Trump unreasonably did.
78/ Barr (via depo) says the DOJ probe of the Giuliani/Powell claims revealed that every single one of them were "bogus" and "without merit." He said that, *from the jump*, there was no evidence that there was "substance" to *any* of the claims Giuliani and Powell were making.
79/ Barr tells of meeting with Cipollone, Kushner, Dan Scavino (Trump social media director) and Trump and explaining Trump’s claims of fraud were "not meritorious." Barr says Meadows—Trump chief of staff—and Jared told him they were trying to get Trump to stop his false claims.
80/ On December 1, 2020, after Trump gave a particularly deranged interview on Fox News saying that DOJ was ignoring fraud, Barr went to the AP to declare that there was no evidence of election fraud that would have changed the result of the election and Barr nearly got fired.
81/ Barr says he told Trump his claims of fraud were "bullshit"; Trump was "as mad as he [Barr] had ever seen him" and began referring to himself in the third person; and Barr walked Trump very carefully through at least one example of a bogus Giuliani/Powell/Trump fraud claim.
82/ This is such a great presentation. This is trial-level quality evidence. This is what you might expect in a federal court proceeding. Just very, *very* impressed by this presentation. Wow. The timeline is being outlined perfectly, and the uses of video are absolutely perfect.
83/ Barr is really going *deep* into his conversations with Trump, detailing the "amateurish" reports Trump was using from the Texas-based ASOG (a far-right cybersecurity operation with an extremely dubious background) to back his claims. Barr calls Trump "detached from reality."
84/ Former AG Barr is now crapping all over—at *length*—the insane Dinesh D'Souza propaganda film "2,000 Mules." He actually laughs out loud at it—at how stupid and paltry it was, implying that no reasonable person could possibly find it compelling.
85/ Barr: "Trump wasn't listening to advice from me or his other Cabinet secretaries" post-election, so he left his job as AG. Barr’s replacement, AG Jeffrey Rosen, says via recorded depo the same thing—he told Trump he was getting "bad information"—and Trump wouldn't listen.
86/ A new witness—Derek Lyons—a former Trump adviser, says the same thing (via depo) as does Alex Cannon, a former Trump campaign lawyer. Trump was ignoring anything he didn’t want to hear (recall what I wrote earlier in the thread about the legal doctrine of willful ignorance").
87/ Cannon says Peter Navarro—future co-author of the "Green Bay Sweep" coup plot—told Cannon he was an agent of the "Deep State" for disagreeing with the false Giuliani/Powell claims of fraud.

Cannon says he told Pence directly the claims were all without any merit or evidence.
88/ Another new witness—ex-Acting Deputy AG Richard Donoghue—told Trump the Giuliani/Powell allegations were "not supported by the evidence developed" and "much of the info you're getting is false." Critically, he says Trump *accepted this* but would keep bringing up new claims.
89/ That Trump would at times accept his advisers’ debunking of his claims is telling, as is the fact that when debunked he’d merely find a new thing to complain about—which allowed him to keep lying about the election and raising money. Clearly he *knew* his advisers were right.
90/ If you’re not watching today’s House January 6 Committee hearing, I have to tell you—and I *cannot emphasize this enough*—how *overwhelming* the evidence is that Trump was repeatedly told all his claims of election fraud were false and had no evidence behind them whatsoever.
91/ The Committee is now taking a ten-minute recess.
92/ One critical point to make is that not only did Trump ignore his advisers’ blanket advice telling him he was getting bad information; not only did Trump repeat claims *after they were debunked*; not only is "willful ignorance"—a choice to detach from reality—not a defense...
93/ ...but when Trump saw individual claims debunked and *accepted* the debunking it means he trusted those advisers even as he ignored them. Moreover Giuliani was drunk; Trump’s other advisers were telling him how amateurish Giuliani’s work was. And Barr says that Trump never...
94/ ...had any demonstrated interest in the truth. For all of these reasons and others, Trump would *not* be able to sustain an earnest-belief defense (nor is willful detachment from reality by a President of the United States). So no, that defense has now been fully obliterated.
95/ Finally—finally!—a legal analyst on cable has raised what this feed (and my substack PROOF) have been talking about for months. Former federal prosecutor Joyce Vance says that "willful blindness" *isn’t a defense* in federal court to a claim of fraud. http://sethabramson.substack.com 
96/ The second live witness panel has been seated, and includes (with Pak and Ginsberg) a Pennsylvania official (a City Commissioner) who was pressured by Team Trump over the 2020 election. Rep. Thompson has gaveled us back in, and questioning of witnesses will commence shortly.
97/ Rep. Zoe Lofgren (D-CA) is again running the questioning. Lofgren asks Pak to talk about his investigation of Trump’s bogus election-fraud claims in Georgia—among the false claims Trump was most insistent about, despite repeatedly being told they had no evidence behind them.
98/ Then-AG Barr asked Pak to investigate the infamous "suitcase of ballots" allegation from Atlanta (Fulton County, GA); Giuliani was really hot on this one, which absurdly claimed that a large volume of fake ballots were introduced to the Georgia count by a far-left activist.
99/ In fact, it was an official lock-box. There was absolutely nothing suspicious about the video. Pak looked into the situation and found this immediately.
100/ It’s unclear if Giuliani was saying the ballots were fake or real but being double-counted. In either case the claim was absolutely false and was quickly found to be false. Richard Donoghue directly told Trump "several times" in "several conversations" the claims were false.
101/ Pak testifies, under oath, that there was no evidence of fraud in Georgia in the November 2020 election that would have changed the outcome of the race in Georgia.
102/ Now Barr is back, again via depo, calling Trump’s claims about 100%+ turnout levels in Philadelphia in the November 2020 election "absolute rubbish." Barr said there was "nothing strange" about the votes in Philadelphia and that Trump was the "weak element" on the PA ballot.
103/ Barr’s testimony is now systematically knocking down Trump conspiracy theories in Pennsylvania—saying he debunked these conspiracy theories with Trump. Now Lofgren turns to Mr. Schmidt, former Republican City Commissioner from Philadelphia. He says he debunked the PA claims.
104/ Schmidt says Team Trump claimed repeatedly that 8,000+ dead people voted in Philadelphia. Schmidt says there wasn't even evidence of *8* such instances. Schmidt says once Trump tweeted about him the death threats against him immediately elevated to an unimaginable level.
105/ Lofgren now switches to Ginsberg, the legendary (aggressive) GOP election lawyer. Ginsberg describes how campaigns normally mount election challenges, and what Team Trump—especially as Giuliani/Powell became involved—did instead. Ginsberg says the 2020 vote was "not close."
106/ Ginsberg says he looked at 60+ cases—180+ allegations—and found no evidence Team Trump made its fraud case in *any* of them.

Trump was 1-61—1 win, 61 losses—in election cases, and the win had nothing to do with the election outcome. Ginsberg says Trump had his day in court.
107/ Ginsberg critically notes that in the majority of cases Trump lost, it *did* get a chance to produce its alleged *substantive* evidence of fraud. Ginsberg says there was "no credible evidence" in any of those cases. Lofgren notes that many of these judges were GOP-appointed.
108/ Lofgren now presents a *damning* video scroll of court holdings throwing Trump’s allegations out of court. In every case the allegations were derided as meritless by judges appointed by both Democrats *and* Republicans. No reasonable candidate could think he had a case here.
109/ Lofgren closes her questioning with a great quote from one of the federal judges who rejected Trump’s bogus election fraud claims: "This was a coup in search of a legal theory."

Thompson has now dismissed the second witness panel. Lofgren is now making a closing statement.
110/ Lofgren is noting how Trump’s litigation went on—inexplicably—past December 14, the safe-harbor date for federal elections. She shows a video of Amanda Wick—an HJ6C investigator—who says Trump’s campaign sent up to 25 fundraising emails daily on the back of its false claims.
111/ Stunning evidence! The Committee showx how Team Trump lied to small-dollar donors about where their money was going. Trump claimed it was to fight election fraud, but it appears that none or virtually none of the hundreds of millions raised actually went where they claimed.
112/ Team Trump was trying to bilk its supporters for money even as Trump was speaking on January 6.

One way to look at it is this: Trump not using the money he raised on election-fraud claims for election-integrity purposes is *more evidence* that he knew his claims were false.
113/ Rep. Cheney is giving a closing statement that includes video of Trump lawyer Eric Hershmann saying he told John Eastman after January 6, "Are you out of your f*cking mind?" Cheney previews some of what the future Committee hearings will cover, including Eastman’s coup plot.
114/ Thompson appears as though he will be the last to speak.

Thompson is entering into the record a video of January 6 insurrectionists parroting all Trump’s false claims of election fraud—beautifully drawing a line between Trump’s lies and what drew rioters to DC on January 6.
115/ The House January 6 Committee now stands adjourned. The next hearing—according to the schedule I have—is Wednesday at 10AM ET. This Twitter feed will live-tweet that hearing, and all these live threads will eventually be permanently archived at PROOF. http://sethabramson.substack.com 
This live thread was of course free. If, as you followed along from 9AM to 1PM today, you felt moved to use the tip jar in my bio, you can see the image below for its precise location in my bio. I appreciate any tips enormously, even as I add that they are—as ever—100% optional.
(PS) The $5 million from Trump’s post-election fundraising grift that went to Event Strategies went to an entity that set up the January 6 White House Ellipse “incitement to insurrection” speech and had as an exec...

...Paul Manafort. Whose continued silence Trump needed to buy.
(PS2) This was another tour-de-force by the House January 6 Committee—and everyone reading this feed knows I’m perfectly willing to criticize the Committee (or, say, the Department of Justice) when or as I feel it is warranted.

The Committee has done *stupendous* work so far.
(PS3) The presentation has thus far been clear and concise and well-organized and no longer than necessary, made perfect use of brief video excerpts, been logically organized, and hit every major point a prosecutor would want to hit in a prospective United States v. Donald Trump.
(AFTER ACTION REPORT) My first AAR following a House January 6 Committee hearing—see below—was public; I expect to publish my second one at PROOF in the next 24 hours, as well as an HJ6C live-thread archive I’m building.

I’ll live-tweet here on Wednesday. https://twitter.com/SethAbramson/status/1535288578695127040?t=Ngp6V7uSO_oZbKJSgf-jMw&s=19
You can follow @SethAbramson.
Tip: mention @twtextapp on a Twitter thread with the keyword “unroll” to get a link to it.

Latest Threads Unrolled: