A public AMA with Seth Abramson, a lawyer and former criminal investigator whose top-ranked substack, Proof, is engaged in the most comprehensive investigation of insurrectionist kingpins in US media.
On March 24, the Times reported that the Capitol Police "had opened an investigation into whether members of Congress inappropriately gave visitors access to the Capitol" in the days before the insurrection "after several lawmakers raised concerns that their own colleagues might have allowed members of a pro-Trump mob inside". Do you know anything about this investigation, wouldn't the existence of numerous security cameras make this a fairly easy thing to investigate, and do you think anything will come of it?
I have not heard anything. I know that Boebert says the tour was just her family and Steve Cohen has backed off his accusations somewhat. I think there's a chance that the Gosar angle is more accurate. Boebert was a new Congresswoman and quite honestly might have had a lot of family in town for her first swearing in. As you know, it is so (so) hard to get Congress to investigate itself or the FBI to investigate Congress.
Why is the DOJ so ineffective at holding the last administration accountable for their gross misconduct? Is Merrick Garland the wrong man for the job? Trump is going to come out of this unscathed, isn’t he. I’m not feeling optimistic.
It's a systemic problem—all of these entities (DOJ, FBI) protect themselves institutionally over the country by avoiding angering those powerful people who could hurt them. They try to stay "apolitical," which means letting politicians commit crimes and be treated differently than most Americans. I don't know what it would take to change this except leaders who are fearless and *actually* apolitical, meaning that politics plays no role whatsoever in the equal administration of the laws of the US.
I'm in awe at the *massive* amount of work output you put together and in such a well organized and understandable way. I hope you're not burning the candle at both ends. Can you take a break soon to rest?
You're doing such an incredible job and thank you for your HARD work!! Is there any way we can get you on the Rachel Maddow show or have you been in communication with her? Or for that matter, our amazing VP or key higher ups in the FBI? THANK YOU.
I think Rachel follows my work, but I am not the sort of person she books as a guest, as I'm deemed too controversial and Rachel already has to deal with that moniker herself—so I think she generally seeks fairly safe guests. If you write on controversial topics and the media establishment considers you an upstart (because you are indie) you become "controversial" and someone Chris Cuomo asks for advice backchannel but doesn't invite on-air. That's just how major media is and one of many reasons it often stinks TBH.
Hi Seth. I may have missed you discussing this previously. What is your personal or legal opinion on the validity and necessity of the filibuster in the Senate?
I think we Democrats need to be honest in saying that we have supported the filibuster when we were in the minority. So no one has clean hands on this issue. But my attitude is the following: (1) the filibuster as now conceived is inconsistent even with the (racist) tradition of it, inasmuch as you don't have to "hold the floor" to filibuster, which you should have to (and it makes it rarer); (2) there have always been, and always should be, certain topics that escape susceptibility to the filibuster, and that should include any legislation relating to "fundamental" constitutional rights as established in SCOTUS case law, such as equal protection and voting; (3) as noted, the filibuster has a racist history, which means if used it must be sparingly and with great controversy attached to that usage in the media (which hasn't been the case since the 1980s, but we need to get back to an "anti-filibuster culture" in DC and in media); and (4) Congress is broken, government is broken, people are turning away from faith in government in droves, and those facts are literally *destroying democracy*—so those who think saving the filibuster saves America are morons. At this point Congress must prove it can *pass legislation*, even stupid legislation that gets undone later on, to matter to *anyone*. Until Congress proves that it works as a legislative body, no one can or should or will take it seriously and hostility toward it (on both sides of the political spectrum) will increase.
I just read a WP “Special Report”: Inside the ‘shadow reality world’ promoting the lie that the presidential election was stolen. The Trump supporters have bought into the Big Lie wholeheartedly. They are not interested in facts or truth. (No news to those of us who do care.) How can these gullible people get their eyes opened to the truth? I am concerned that it isn’t possible to change their opinions. Your thoughts?
I think most of them are lost for now. Remember, they're in a cult; have no interest in news; and are just looking for something going by the name of "politics" (which is not actually politics) to act as therapy and entertainment for them. The country is endangered by their out-of-control emotional needs and psychological fragility. They are not rational. The most we can try to do is reconstruct a distantly rational, altruistic, fact-seeking, Enlightenment-informed society that they will feel so unwelcome in that maybe they will slowly feel compelled to return to Earth Prime. Or at least their kids will.
The cult is alive and well here in Georgia. I'm on vacation on a GA island and a store in the busy tourism area has literally covered their windows with hateful statements and offensive "jokes" attacking Democrats and liberals. Can you even imagine a Democrat-owned businesses doing something like that? And it's even attracting more business for them. It's a sickness, and a very juvenile, brainwashed one. I don't think that Trumpism is based on anything other than a cult of personality. Facts don't get through to these people.
From the TOP it’s based on how much money they can fleece from the BOTTOM. That’s the sickness. These people are so grotesque with their pleas for cash. Trump/RNC/Stop the Steal,etc. have raised u told millions off the Lie.
I don’t even think it’s truly about power. I think it’s *get as much out of the BASE as we can before they throw us in prison or the people catch on that we are lying*.
The sad part is the poorest magats that are getting fleeced and not getting anything out of it other than support for hate, division and authoritarianism. Sad.
What are your thoughts and observations regarding the Interim suspension of Rudy Giuliani's law license? What does this action mean for Giuliani's legal exposure?
Well, it's an administrative action, so it doesn't directly impact his criminal liability. The question now is whether he gets fully disbarred. The suspension is temporary. It's also well-deserved—indeed, based on my research for Proof of Collusion (2018), Proof of Conspiracy (2019), and Proof of Corruption (2020), he absolutely should be disbarred. But lawyers (especially bar associations) are culturally conservative, and will be tempted to try to wait until Giuliani faces criminal charges, if they can, to disbar him.
I am thrilled by this development. But I think they must subpoena people *early and often*, because every single one will be a months-long fight. I think they must brook no bullshit with witnesses fighting subpoenas. I also think—and I'm not just saying this because I run PROOF, but because we learned the importance of this in the Russia investigation—that they can't just rely on FBI and USIC investigations. They *should* be monitoring what major media is reporting *and* what the top indie journalists and their publications are reporting.
We can't criminalize lying. But I think a few well-warranted incitement prosecutions would remind Americans that certain rhetoric now has a proven history of producing violence imminently, and that speakers have a responsibility to be aware of that when they have large audiences and are in the public square and have publicly supported insurrection. Ultimately, voting rights are key: the only way to ensure that these treacherous individuals never have power again is to *not* let them abridge Americans' right to vote. If and when and as Americans vote freely and fairly, I don't believe these people get into power again. But that's a very big "if and when," as voter suppression is approximately a *million* times more real, rampant, and consequential than voter fraud.
What are your thoughts on the likelihood of big fish in Trump's circle (Stone, Giuliani, Trump) or Republican members of Congress (Gosar, Biggs, Greene, Brooks, Tuberville, Cruz) conspiring with paramilitaries to attack the capital?
Honestly? Based on my research? I'd say that all of the people you mentioned consorted with dangerous extremists before January 6. Not all did so in a way that will be deemed criminal, though all should certainly be removed from office and eligibility for office due to complicity (at least civil) in insurrection—which is supposed to be disqualify from holding office. Several of them should be, I believe, criminally liable as well, including Giuliani, Stone, Trump, Gosar, and Brooks.
A couple bits of background: there are reports of Gosar trying to recruit the Proud Boys to organize a "Brooks Brothers'" riot to interrupt vote-counting in Arizona. And there are reports of Republican members of congress giving tours of the Capitol on Jan 5th. Is
Hm. I'm wondering, specifically, about their connections to paramilitaries--the Proud Boys, Oath Keepers, and Three Percenters in particular. Not so much dangerous extremists like Ali Alexander or Alex Jones. Was there some kind of chain of communication through which the "political wing" coordinated with the paramilitary wing of the movement to overturn the election? What might that chain have looked like?
Seth, your dogs Quinn & Scout are wonderful & non-political, & I enjoy your tweets about them. I see that they’re both hounds, & I’m assuming you & your wife have chosen this breed specifically. What is it about hounds that makes them special?
I do like the fact that the history of hounds is such that those who love them often insist that they are *not* dogs but hounds (look it up! :-) So hounds do have this history of truly being a world unto themselves. They have so much energy, so desperately want tasks to do, and so extroverted and active and fun to be around. And they truly understand what it means to have a "pack," so once you're in theirs they will climb on your almost like you're part of the same organism. Quinn and Scout sometimes literally seem to believe they can occupy the same physical space. All that said, my wife chose both rescues for (a) cuteness, and (b) extroversion, and in Scout's case she really is only part hound (Quinn is only part too, but is much more obviously hound) so we didn't so much pick for breed. That said, many people, if you can believe it, think Scout and Quinn are related, perhaps because they're about the same size (Scout 52 pounds, Quinn 62 pounds) and they do look like a salt-and-pepper pair, which I suspect we were thinking about too, semi-consciously. ;-)
Thank you for this response, Seth—although I’m a cat-keeper, I know dogs have distinctive traits, & I figured that as hounds, there had to be special traits that brought them to your attention, & into your lives. It makes me so happy to see them, obviously doted on & living their very best lives. Please continue to share them w/us.
I think this conversation has helped me understand our dog better. Probably can't expect him to refrain from jumping on us. And we need to play fetch and tug with him a lot more.
Are you familiar with the work of Social Scientist Bob Altemeyer on Authoritarians? Here is a link to his free digital book. https://theauthoritarians.org/ . He also coauthored a book with former White House counsel John Dean called "Authoritarian Nightmare" which was recently updated to cover authoritarians and their followers after January 6th.
It has really done a lot for me in understanding what makes Conservatives and Trumpists tick. As a former Librarian I highly recommend this book because it is grounded in years of research from polling, attitude surveys and personality tests. Altemeyer was so concerned about the implications of his findings for Democracy, that he wrote the book and put it up for free during Bush the younger's administration. It is the only book I have read that explains the maddening inconsistencies in these peoples beliefs.
I’m so frustrated all the Flynn’s are still free and doing harm. What do you think will happen to active duty, promoted to the Pacific General Charles, and pardoned Michael who still incites? The whole family should be investigated.
The most recent reporting is that the military plans to do nothing about Flynn because he "retracted" his *obviously* seditious statements from Dallas. I wonder if they will let him play that game many more times; I fear that they will. Charles has not been shown to have engaged in any wrongdoing, though the House Select Committee should figure out why he was wrongly brought into the chain of command on January 6 and why the Pentagon lied about it. Joe Flynn and Michael Flynn Jr. are dangerous but will only face criminal liability if they incite violence through speech that meets the relevant criminal statutes with respect to foreseeability and imminence.
I think someone at Trump Org will eventually, yes. These are old, soft, rich cowards who can't face prison time and know that Trump is a monster not worth defending who won't return their loyalty.
Okay, I've updated the post above (see the bolded text). Thanks so much to everyone for the questions!
Thank you.
On March 24, the Times reported that the Capitol Police "had opened an investigation into whether members of Congress inappropriately gave visitors access to the Capitol" in the days before the insurrection "after several lawmakers raised concerns that their own colleagues might have allowed members of a pro-Trump mob inside". Do you know anything about this investigation, wouldn't the existence of numerous security cameras make this a fairly easy thing to investigate, and do you think anything will come of it?
I have not heard anything. I know that Boebert says the tour was just her family and Steve Cohen has backed off his accusations somewhat. I think there's a chance that the Gosar angle is more accurate. Boebert was a new Congresswoman and quite honestly might have had a lot of family in town for her first swearing in. As you know, it is so (so) hard to get Congress to investigate itself or the FBI to investigate Congress.
Yeah, I've been wondering where the heck that investigation went. No news is NOT good news in this situation.
Hi Seth,
Why is the DOJ so ineffective at holding the last administration accountable for their gross misconduct? Is Merrick Garland the wrong man for the job? Trump is going to come out of this unscathed, isn’t he. I’m not feeling optimistic.
It's a systemic problem—all of these entities (DOJ, FBI) protect themselves institutionally over the country by avoiding angering those powerful people who could hurt them. They try to stay "apolitical," which means letting politicians commit crimes and be treated differently than most Americans. I don't know what it would take to change this except leaders who are fearless and *actually* apolitical, meaning that politics plays no role whatsoever in the equal administration of the laws of the US.
I'm in awe at the *massive* amount of work output you put together and in such a well organized and understandable way. I hope you're not burning the candle at both ends. Can you take a break soon to rest?
I am trying to take things off my plate. I would give myself a "B" in this regard so far. Working on it.
You're doing such an incredible job and thank you for your HARD work!! Is there any way we can get you on the Rachel Maddow show or have you been in communication with her? Or for that matter, our amazing VP or key higher ups in the FBI? THANK YOU.
I think Rachel follows my work, but I am not the sort of person she books as a guest, as I'm deemed too controversial and Rachel already has to deal with that moniker herself—so I think she generally seeks fairly safe guests. If you write on controversial topics and the media establishment considers you an upstart (because you are indie) you become "controversial" and someone Chris Cuomo asks for advice backchannel but doesn't invite on-air. That's just how major media is and one of many reasons it often stinks TBH.
Hi Seth. I may have missed you discussing this previously. What is your personal or legal opinion on the validity and necessity of the filibuster in the Senate?
I think we Democrats need to be honest in saying that we have supported the filibuster when we were in the minority. So no one has clean hands on this issue. But my attitude is the following: (1) the filibuster as now conceived is inconsistent even with the (racist) tradition of it, inasmuch as you don't have to "hold the floor" to filibuster, which you should have to (and it makes it rarer); (2) there have always been, and always should be, certain topics that escape susceptibility to the filibuster, and that should include any legislation relating to "fundamental" constitutional rights as established in SCOTUS case law, such as equal protection and voting; (3) as noted, the filibuster has a racist history, which means if used it must be sparingly and with great controversy attached to that usage in the media (which hasn't been the case since the 1980s, but we need to get back to an "anti-filibuster culture" in DC and in media); and (4) Congress is broken, government is broken, people are turning away from faith in government in droves, and those facts are literally *destroying democracy*—so those who think saving the filibuster saves America are morons. At this point Congress must prove it can *pass legislation*, even stupid legislation that gets undone later on, to matter to *anyone*. Until Congress proves that it works as a legislative body, no one can or should or will take it seriously and hostility toward it (on both sides of the political spectrum) will increase.
Thank you. I love how you unpack these subjects. Appreciate all that you do.
I just read a WP “Special Report”: Inside the ‘shadow reality world’ promoting the lie that the presidential election was stolen. The Trump supporters have bought into the Big Lie wholeheartedly. They are not interested in facts or truth. (No news to those of us who do care.) How can these gullible people get their eyes opened to the truth? I am concerned that it isn’t possible to change their opinions. Your thoughts?
I think most of them are lost for now. Remember, they're in a cult; have no interest in news; and are just looking for something going by the name of "politics" (which is not actually politics) to act as therapy and entertainment for them. The country is endangered by their out-of-control emotional needs and psychological fragility. They are not rational. The most we can try to do is reconstruct a distantly rational, altruistic, fact-seeking, Enlightenment-informed society that they will feel so unwelcome in that maybe they will slowly feel compelled to return to Earth Prime. Or at least their kids will.
Psychiatrist/violence expert Bandy X. Lee calls this a mental health pandemic, sparked by Trump's pathologies and lack of accountability for him.
And I am old enough that I don’t anticipate I will live to see that happening.
I believe some will return, some will find another flock, the rest will sadly annoy me. The violent and most hateful will continue to be our problem.
The cult is alive and well here in Georgia. I'm on vacation on a GA island and a store in the busy tourism area has literally covered their windows with hateful statements and offensive "jokes" attacking Democrats and liberals. Can you even imagine a Democrat-owned businesses doing something like that? And it's even attracting more business for them. It's a sickness, and a very juvenile, brainwashed one. I don't think that Trumpism is based on anything other than a cult of personality. Facts don't get through to these people.
From the TOP it’s based on how much money they can fleece from the BOTTOM. That’s the sickness. These people are so grotesque with their pleas for cash. Trump/RNC/Stop the Steal,etc. have raised u told millions off the Lie.
I don’t even think it’s truly about power. I think it’s *get as much out of the BASE as we can before they throw us in prison or the people catch on that we are lying*.
The sad part is the poorest magats that are getting fleeced and not getting anything out of it other than support for hate, division and authoritarianism. Sad.
What are your thoughts and observations regarding the Interim suspension of Rudy Giuliani's law license? What does this action mean for Giuliani's legal exposure?
Well, it's an administrative action, so it doesn't directly impact his criminal liability. The question now is whether he gets fully disbarred. The suspension is temporary. It's also well-deserved—indeed, based on my research for Proof of Collusion (2018), Proof of Conspiracy (2019), and Proof of Corruption (2020), he absolutely should be disbarred. But lawyers (especially bar associations) are culturally conservative, and will be tempted to try to wait until Giuliani faces criminal charges, if they can, to disbar him.
What are your current thoughts on the House Select Committee? IMO Nancy is fearless!
I am thrilled by this development. But I think they must subpoena people *early and often*, because every single one will be a months-long fight. I think they must brook no bullshit with witnesses fighting subpoenas. I also think—and I'm not just saying this because I run PROOF, but because we learned the importance of this in the Russia investigation—that they can't just rely on FBI and USIC investigations. They *should* be monitoring what major media is reporting *and* what the top indie journalists and their publications are reporting.
what if anything can be done about these snowballing Big Lie promoters?
Lindell, Byrne, and Bannon are weaponizing this narrative repeatedly.
We can't criminalize lying. But I think a few well-warranted incitement prosecutions would remind Americans that certain rhetoric now has a proven history of producing violence imminently, and that speakers have a responsibility to be aware of that when they have large audiences and are in the public square and have publicly supported insurrection. Ultimately, voting rights are key: the only way to ensure that these treacherous individuals never have power again is to *not* let them abridge Americans' right to vote. If and when and as Americans vote freely and fairly, I don't believe these people get into power again. But that's a very big "if and when," as voter suppression is approximately a *million* times more real, rampant, and consequential than voter fraud.
Lying in a propagandist way to hurt America is criminal already, Counsel. To my recollection
What are your thoughts on the likelihood of big fish in Trump's circle (Stone, Giuliani, Trump) or Republican members of Congress (Gosar, Biggs, Greene, Brooks, Tuberville, Cruz) conspiring with paramilitaries to attack the capital?
Honestly? Based on my research? I'd say that all of the people you mentioned consorted with dangerous extremists before January 6. Not all did so in a way that will be deemed criminal, though all should certainly be removed from office and eligibility for office due to complicity (at least civil) in insurrection—which is supposed to be disqualify from holding office. Several of them should be, I believe, criminally liable as well, including Giuliani, Stone, Trump, Gosar, and Brooks.
What about Erik Prince. Involved?
A couple bits of background: there are reports of Gosar trying to recruit the Proud Boys to organize a "Brooks Brothers'" riot to interrupt vote-counting in Arizona. And there are reports of Republican members of congress giving tours of the Capitol on Jan 5th. Is
Hm. I'm wondering, specifically, about their connections to paramilitaries--the Proud Boys, Oath Keepers, and Three Percenters in particular. Not so much dangerous extremists like Ali Alexander or Alex Jones. Was there some kind of chain of communication through which the "political wing" coordinated with the paramilitary wing of the movement to overturn the election? What might that chain have looked like?
Seth, your dogs Quinn & Scout are wonderful & non-political, & I enjoy your tweets about them. I see that they’re both hounds, & I’m assuming you & your wife have chosen this breed specifically. What is it about hounds that makes them special?
I do like the fact that the history of hounds is such that those who love them often insist that they are *not* dogs but hounds (look it up! :-) So hounds do have this history of truly being a world unto themselves. They have so much energy, so desperately want tasks to do, and so extroverted and active and fun to be around. And they truly understand what it means to have a "pack," so once you're in theirs they will climb on your almost like you're part of the same organism. Quinn and Scout sometimes literally seem to believe they can occupy the same physical space. All that said, my wife chose both rescues for (a) cuteness, and (b) extroversion, and in Scout's case she really is only part hound (Quinn is only part too, but is much more obviously hound) so we didn't so much pick for breed. That said, many people, if you can believe it, think Scout and Quinn are related, perhaps because they're about the same size (Scout 52 pounds, Quinn 62 pounds) and they do look like a salt-and-pepper pair, which I suspect we were thinking about too, semi-consciously. ;-)
Thank you for this response, Seth—although I’m a cat-keeper, I know dogs have distinctive traits, & I figured that as hounds, there had to be special traits that brought them to your attention, & into your lives. It makes me so happy to see them, obviously doted on & living their very best lives. Please continue to share them w/us.
Aussies are the same way! They always want a job, and are devoted to their packs. Dogs are the best.
I think this conversation has helped me understand our dog better. Probably can't expect him to refrain from jumping on us. And we need to play fetch and tug with him a lot more.
Are you familiar with the work of Social Scientist Bob Altemeyer on Authoritarians? Here is a link to his free digital book. https://theauthoritarians.org/ . He also coauthored a book with former White House counsel John Dean called "Authoritarian Nightmare" which was recently updated to cover authoritarians and their followers after January 6th.
I hadn't come across him before; thanks for the link.
It has really done a lot for me in understanding what makes Conservatives and Trumpists tick. As a former Librarian I highly recommend this book because it is grounded in years of research from polling, attitude surveys and personality tests. Altemeyer was so concerned about the implications of his findings for Democracy, that he wrote the book and put it up for free during Bush the younger's administration. It is the only book I have read that explains the maddening inconsistencies in these peoples beliefs.
Do you think Missouri is the most corrupt state in the country? If not, which and briefly, Why?
Florida is the most corrupt state in America by far. It's not close.
Arizona us making a run ....all of those states passing voter suppression laws are vying for a mention
Hmm I just moved to FL. I’ll have to read the local papers.
https://specials-images.forbesimg.com/imageserve/5e4d03f3f133f4000629352f/960x0.jpg?fit=scale
Of course, these have the highest number of CONVICTIONS, which is a whole different thing.
wait for the gaetz fiasco to end
Have you met Texas?
HAHAHAHA
I’m so frustrated all the Flynn’s are still free and doing harm. What do you think will happen to active duty, promoted to the Pacific General Charles, and pardoned Michael who still incites? The whole family should be investigated.
The most recent reporting is that the military plans to do nothing about Flynn because he "retracted" his *obviously* seditious statements from Dallas. I wonder if they will let him play that game many more times; I fear that they will. Charles has not been shown to have engaged in any wrongdoing, though the House Select Committee should figure out why he was wrongly brought into the chain of command on January 6 and why the Pentagon lied about it. Joe Flynn and Michael Flynn Jr. are dangerous but will only face criminal liability if they incite violence through speech that meets the relevant criminal statutes with respect to foreseeability and imminence.
🤬
Do you think Weisselberg and/or Calamari Sr./Jr. will flip on Trump?
I think someone at Trump Org will eventually, yes. These are old, soft, rich cowards who can't face prison time and know that Trump is a monster not worth defending who won't return their loyalty.