> The Twitter files [0] were front page material for a few weeks You're again making vague gesturing towards "coordination" and "regular meetings" in service o

> The Twitter files [0] were front page material for a few weeks You're again making vague gesturing towards "coordination" and "regular meetings" in service of justifying claims of "a pocket of authoritarians settled in the US intelligence services". You must know that "regular meetings" don't signal "packet of authoritarians" to anybody but the most diehard conspiracy theorists. Who were these authoritarians? what were they doing? and how were they doing it? The "Twitter Files" holds none of these answers, having been widely reported (according to the Wikipedia page you linked) as being a misrepresentation of normal communication between governmental entities and private companies. > Again, you seem to be reading more than I'm writing with this one. I disagree that I'm making any assumption outside of what you've written there, but I'll leave it there. > I mean, if we're talking about the ~100 people who turned up armed You're not answering the question. From your tone I can tell your answer is most likely that you don't consider the armed insurrection of the US capitol building connected to Donald Trump. What caused it then? Does Trump have any culpability for letting armed people take part of his march?