As a for instance, before the election, Trump denigrated mail voting to his supporters, a Trump goon sabotaged the postal service, the PA legislature forbid precanvassing mail ballots (so they wouldn’t appear in election night tabulations of the vote), ...
the PA GOP sued to throw out late-arriving mail ballots, and Trump was reported to be planning to declare victory based on the strength of the same-day vote and then to sue to stop Biden from overtaking him in mail ballots. axios.com/trump-claim-el…
This plan was then put into actual practice. Trump did declare victory in the early morning hours after th election before mail ballots had pushed Biden into a lead in PA, and he did sue to stop counting votes and then, when Biden overtook him, to throw them out.
It’s not a plan that has worked so far, but it was a plan to steal the election that was explained with precision beforehand by the people opposing it. And it’s one whose reality has been corroborated by subsequent events.
Just one thing to add; this is only a for instance. You can tell similarly precise stories about efforts to suppress mail-in ballots in other states—including Lindsey Graham’s still not fully reported activities. You can look hard at the busted plan to use the DOJ to intervene...
There was a concerted, multifaceted, well-documented effort to subvert this election, the president was an organizing force, he and much of his party actively participated, and it has caused real damage. The attempts to write all that off are deeply unworthy.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
"Investigators found that Cardlytics’ chief executive at the time, Scott Grimes, sent Mr. Perdue a personal email two days before the senator’s stock sale that made a vague mention of “upcoming changes.”" nytimes.com/2020/11/25/us/…
"The timing of the message prompted additional scrutiny from investigators in both Washington and Atlanta. But ultimately they concluded the exchange contained no meaningful nonpublic information and declined to pursue charges, closing the case this summer."
If, say, you and I have a contract and we have come to disagree about the meaning of a provision in it, either of us can go to court and ask a judge to decide upfront what it means (w/o waiting for an alleged breach and damages to accrue). That’s what a declaratory judgment is.
Correx: It’s Wisconsin’s certification they’re challenging and that’s expected today, not Minnesota’s. I got flummoxed. My apologies.
A notable thing about this letter, one that may rear its head again, is @GSAEmily skips over the 'ascertainment' part where she determines Biden and Harris are the "apparent successful candidates."
Instead, she jumps ahead to determining that they "may access the resources."
"I came to my decision independently," Director Murphy wrote.
At almost the same her letter became public, Trump tweeted that he had suggested she take these steps.
To translate from Willy Wonka, the federal judge in the PA case dismissed the pending complaint with prejudice and denied Giuliani’s attempt to amend it. The case is over (pending appeal).