What I find interesting about the rxns to this podcast is the # of ppl who didnt want anything to do w/Sanders, listened and came away w/ either a) changed perspective on him or b) a willingness to ask more q's re: healthcare, min. wage, drug abuse etc to their preferred choice.
People really detest this man or profess to on social media. He is polarizing. But that some actually took the time to listen to an in-depth political conversation for 1hr+ w/an open mind - that is encouraging generally speaking. Open minds give good ideas room to flourish.
Not sharing the podcast to endorse any candidate or endorse Rogan or his show. I am however noting this podcast because it broke records for Rogan's program and some of the commentary on social media was enlightening. I see Warren voters giving room to Sanders platform...
I see Castro, Biden, Harris supporters doing it too. The honest interview Rogan conducted fomented good convos about issues all people in America face. That ppl can be civil about this in many of the comments... it isnt meaningless. This type of dialogue should be encouraged.
If a candidate you prefer has conducted an interview that you feel achieved this sort of dialogue amongst the people, drop it in the comments. Share it with others. Give this one a listen if you like. Or don't.
And on that note, have a good weekend all!
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
As the release of the anticipated appendix to Jack Smith’s legal brief is due today, I will now begin a live-tweet thread unpacking the Legal Framework section of the immunity brief in Trump's Jan. 6 election subversion case.
I already unpacked a section establishing evidence Smith intends to use at trial, should that ever happen, but I have some links for you here now to revisit at your convenience.
But this thread is more digesting what Smith wrote in immunity brief re: Legal Framework, or why...
...in light of the Supreme Court’s immunity ruling, Trump’s alleged conduct before/on Jan. 6 is prosecutable.
NEW: Vem Miller sues Sheriff Chad Bianco for defamation, alleging Bianco wrongly stated that he thwarted Miller's assassination attempt of DJT. Miller says most "egregious" stmt by Bianco was that he had fake creds; Miller says campaign gave it to him. I asked. They denied that.
I'd like to also point out that Mr. Miller is represented by Sigal Chattah. Ms. Chattah is the national committeewoman for the NV GOP.
I called Ms. Chattah a few days ago actually, seeking a comment from her about whether she had any idea how Miller was credentialed. No response. I called every member of the NV GOP that I couald get contact info for, and when I spoke to Mr. Jim Hindle, NV GOP vice chair...
It's Christmas Day 2020. Pence calls Trump to wish him a Merry Christmas.
Trump raises the certification on Jan. 6 and tells his running mate he's got "discretion in his role" as pres. of the Sen. Pence replies: 'You know, I dont think I have the authority to change the outcome'
Trump, the very next day sends out this tweet:
There's less than two weeks until Congress meets for the certification.
I will now continue my live-tweet thread reviewing special counsel Jack Smith’s brief outlining the case he intends to bring against Donald Trump for allegedly conspiring to overturn the 2020 election and more.
OK - So we pick up with the allegations laid out re: Michigan and Smith begins on Nov. 20, 2020 a few days before the guv of MI signed the certificate appointing Biden's electors. Trump meets with P37, who is Mike Shirkey, MI Sen. Maj Ldr., and P38=MI House Speaker Lee Chatfield
Trump gets this mtg through the help of RNC Chairwoman P39, who in 2020, was Ronna Romney McDaniel. Trump wanted her there but Smith says that Ronna told Trump her attorney advised against it. There's an introduction made, and Trump invites Shirkey and Chatfield to the WH
Jack Smith has filed the much-anticipated brief in Donald Trump's Jan. 6 election subversion case.
Let's walk through it together in this thread. big.assets.huffingtonpost.com/athena/files/2…
First things first, what we are we looking at with this document?
This filing is the framework Smith has set for Chutkan to make her analysis under the parameters of the SCOTUS immunity ruling for former presidents and he has broken it down into 4 parts.
The parts of the immunity brief are broken into 4 sections: 1) What Smith intends to prove at trial 2) The legal principles that govern presidential immunity and how Trump acted as office-seeker, not office-holder 3) How legal principles apply to Trump's conduct 4) Relief sought