Seth Abramson+ Your Authors @SethAbramson Lawyer. Professor. NYT bestselling author. @Newsweek columnist with many appearances @CNN, @CBC, @BBC. My new book, Proof of Corruption, is at Oct. 22, 2019 4 min read + Your Authors

CNN reports—echoing the central thesis of this Twitter feed—that investigation of Trump will take longer than some folks expected because "each witness has so far provided more leads for investigators to chase down." I'm glad media is starting to get that. 

1/ The idea that anyone watching Trump would think a real investigation of this POTUS would be completed quickly is astonishing, frankly, in October 2019. It suggests one has been reading Bob Woodward—who never investigated Trump's foreign policy—rather than feeds like this one.

2/ As a former criminal investigator and defense attorney who began using his feed to recount investigate leads relating to Trump's foreign policy in 2016, I experienced years of folks falsely saying "there's nothing there." Now everyone admits there's *so* much it's neverending.

3/ The next stage of this public grieving process for some in media and certain authors—like Bob Woodward—who badly missed the mark, will be acknowledging that *everything* Trump did with Ukraine he of *course* (and the evidence indicates) he *also* did with respect to Russia.

4/ In a criminal investigation, every new fact doesn't just reveal a new investigate pathway—it also sheds light on *all other facts previously compiled*. The percentage of the already-damning Mueller Report that now requires a complete reevaluation is a staggeringly high figure.

5/ For instance, the central premise behind Team Trump's defense against the damning Mueller Report was that while Manafort and a dozen others may have been holding secret meetings with foreign nationals and lying about all of them, Trump knew *literally nothing about any of it*.

6/ How probable, now—I hope @ChrisCuomo, @donlemon, @Maddow, @NicolleDWallace, and others will ask on TV nightly—are all the silly defenses we heard against allegations of Russian, Saudi, Emirati, and Israeli collusion, in light of how we know for *sure* Trump acted with Ukraine?

7/ For instance, Trump's defense against allegations of Russian collusion hinged on his son Don *lying to him for a year* about his involvement with the Russians by pretending there was none. Has that claim of how Don acts toward/around his father now been borne out, or undercut?

8/ Trump's defense against allegations of Russian collusion also hinged on the idea that—despite a 40-year rep as a micro-manager on things he really cares about—Trump was *100% aloof* of what his *whole political team was working on* in 2015/2016. Does that sound correct *now*?

9/ Trump's defense against allegations he obstructed justice hinged on the idea he reasonably believed he'd done nothing wrong and reasonably believed he had the right to act as he did. Now that we know the advice he was getting and what he's really been up to, does that hold up?

10/ Mueller made clear he couldn't get a comprehensive understanding of Trump's activities because Team Trump stonewalled him at every turn. Now that America has seen up close what a Team Trump stonewall looks like, does anyone think Mueller got a full view of Trump's activities?

11/ As a former defense lawyer I know defense lawyers often test the "sufficiency of the evidence" by a) questioning process, b) isolating facts rather than looking at trends/connections. That's OK—defense lawyers are charged with doing so. But it's not a balanced view of a case.

12/ Democrats can choose whatever impeachment strategy they like—and media can cover the impeachment however it likes—as long as they meet this standard: that Trump is treated *no better than you or I would be* if we'd done what Trump has. Anything else *betrays* American values.

13/ If you or I were being investigated for bribery—say, for running a secret in-campaign real estate deal with the Kremlin, even as our Russia policy was considered *historically pro-Kremlin*—and then we got caught soliciting bribes from Ukraine, what do you think would happen?

14/ Lindsey Graham is an attorney who used to work criminal cases—he knows *damn well* that you don't isolate facts in a criminal investigation, or even isolate *allegations*, unless you're an *advocate* for the defendant who's trying to *make sure he can run a defense* at trial.

15/ From Day 1, Democrats should've had *one* rallying cry—we'll treat Trump and his staff *exactly* as the district court down the street from [you the individual American voter] would, and not a *whit* better/worse. They could've educated America on how all this *really* works.

PS/ My challenge to every cable news host—be it @ChrisCuomo, @Maddow, @DonLemon, or @NicolleDWallace—is to *acknowledge* the political implications of all this while *honoring* the *fact* (and it *is* a fact) that our rule of law must apply *exactly* to Trump as to everyone else.

You can follow @SethAbramson.


Tip: mention @threader_app on a Twitter thread with the keyword “compile” to get a link to it.

Enjoy Threader? Sign up.

Since you’re here...

... we’re asking visitors like you to make a contribution to support this independent project. In these uncertain times, access to information is vital. Threader gets 1,000,000+ visits a month and our iOS Twitter client was featured as an App of the Day by Apple. Your financial support will help two developers to keep working on this app. Everyone’s contribution, big or small, is so valuable. Support Threader by becoming premium or by donating on PayPal. Thank you.

Follow Threader