I don't know who needs to hear this, but it is NOT legal for @GSAEmily to falsely claim she can't ascertain any apparent winner. No more than it'd be legal for the DMV to go "I don't see any license renewal here" because you refused to slip them a bribe to process it.
And no, there would not need to be a new law at a future time saying "It's illegal for DMV Clerk X to refuse to process Joe B's renewal without a bribe." It's already illegal. Lying in your official capacity and obstructing government function is illegal, already, period.
And no, it doesn't work like "Who's to say what eyesight really is, maybe one person's green is another person's purple, no one can ever know, because our system has no mechanism to determine truth." Stop that. We're better than that, as a people.
Emily Murphy is lying, and she is not going to stop lying at some date that you set your heart on, because she is not sincerely doing the functions of her job, she is abusing her office.
When someone's abusing their office, there's nothing that we can do, outside of confronting that truth, that could get them to start doing their official functions properly. We can't like, trick her into doing the right thing. Put Joe in a mustache or something and try it. No.
But hey good news, there is a whole court system just for things like this! People who have rights that an official of the government is not respecting? They can sue about it!
And yeah, some of the judges are corrupt, the guy trying the coup packed a lot of them in. But if you don't ask ANY judge then you are definitely going to lose the case that did not happen.

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh

Keep Current with 🆘Rev Magdalen | Protect the Results

🆘Rev Magdalen | Protect the Results Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!


Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @revmagdalen

22 Nov
People are all like, "You're telling me a guy who couldn't even control his own hair dye could be part of a successful coup that either stays in power or returns to power after years of stochastic terrorism?"
And yes, that's exactly what I'm saying. The cult base does not care about Rudy's dye mishap, and they think you're mean and probably Satanic for laughing at it.
The thing MAGA took away from the press conference at the official HQ of their party was that they not only won the election and Trump is the rightful president-elect, but it was such a landslide that it overwhelmed a hacking algorithm meant to steal the election for Biden.
Read 4 tweets
22 Nov
When we yell at each individual liar as if they were doing it on their own, we miss the forest for the trees. This is a coup attempt by the Republican Party, which has illegitimately declared victory in an election, and whose members did not leave it after it did so.
But because the party candidate's lawyer, at the party headquarters, declared victory in a press conference where his hair dye ran down his face, no one paid attention to the content or the implications or what it means that these elected officials stay in a party that did that.
The reality-based community laughs at "Hugo Chavez had special election software made so that he could rig his elections, and Democrats got a copy and used it to steal the election." Missing the seriousness of Powell saying the true Trump tally was so large it broke the software.
Read 4 tweets
21 Nov
Vice finally got someone from GSA on the record trying the "precedent from Clinton admin in 2000" excuse, and the internet just decided to believe what she *means* by that is she'll do it Monday when 270 EC votes are certified for Biden. vice.com/en/article/88a…
But another way to read that is that the 2000 precedent is you release the transition funds when there is a concession. Clinton's admin waited until Gore said he was not filing any more cases and conceding. So, in our current predicament, on the 51st of Nevruary.
But at a meta level, it is clearly *a lie* to claim that this election is close like the 2000 one was, with the outcome in dispute up until the last lawsuit was settled. That's not true. It's untrue, on purpose. It's a lie.
Read 6 tweets
10 Nov
But seriously though, if you think it's "smart and sophisticated" to think public sentiment has no impact on what senators do, so therefore it's idiotic to use a strategy of first moving sentiment, so constituents move their senators, you do not belong in politics in a democracy.
If you agree with a woman who said defending this republic just "wasn't worth it," and you think of the public in red states as mechanical objects that always press the R button, who wouldn't care about orphans crying, women raped, their own family's Covid dead, why are you here?
Go make money selling candy bars or something. Governance is about turning public sentiment into action.
Read 6 tweets
9 Nov
The *reason* Trump's authoritarian coup attempt won't succeed is because the people turned out in spontaneous joy when they heard he was defeated. Before seeing that, he thought he could dominate "anarchist jurisdictions" with his thugs. But now he knows he can't.
I still don't think he will ever concede. It is not in his nature to accept defeat, he would not see any reason to do that, and the people asking him to are just getting themselves put on his enemies list. Yes, even Ivanka. It's important to remember that he has no problem lying.
Because pro-democracy activists organized ahead of time to create rapid response teams, which are still standing ready to protect the results with peaceful demonstrations, and then masses showed up in joy on the day it was called for Joe, that changed the course of history.
Read 4 tweets
8 Nov
Bring back the Fairness Doctrine! At least the right of reply, the right to answer back with equal time for any accusations of serious corruption or crime made.
Think of how different the past 12 years would have been if every time Fox or right-wing radio accused Obama or Hillary of deliberately killing ambassadors, or using email for nefarious purposes, or eating babies, they had equal time on the same network and timeslot to reply.
And vice versa, imagine every time Maddow made an accusation against Trump, she could also then say "We of course offered him time to reply with any evidence to refute ours, but he declined." Or if his lawyer showed up it would clearly be ridiculous nonsense as a rebuttal.
Read 4 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!

This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Too expensive? Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal Become our Patreon

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!