By the way, when I say go after officials, I don't mean character-assassinate them. I mean insist on State officials addressing the public and explaining any serious anomalies in the election process. Let us hear the official explanation for election process and counts anomalies.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
1. Trump Was Outmaneuvered By Democrats in Broad Daylight
Trump didn't lose the election on election day. On election day voting, he won big. But he had lost the election before the first vote was cast on election day.
Trump's strategic mistake was astounding.
2. Was there voter fraud? Of course there was, because there always is, but almost all of it happened before election day -- ballot stuffing, registering illegal voters, mailing ballots for dead voters, etc. -- the usual staple, nothing new, but probably on a larger scale.
3. But I don't think fraud alone, or even predominantly, cost Trump the election. Trump got so many more votes on election day that even fraud could not have cost him the election. It was something else. It was a strategic mistake that did the trick.
I thought I would explain my thought process. I do it for three reasons:
a) Vanity (let's get that out of the way)
b) If I think what I have said in my response to another tweet has wider applicability, I share it with all my followers
2 of 2
Why I Re-Tweet My Own Tweets
c) This is the most important reason. On important topics, I want feedback from the largest number of people so I can readjust my own thinking if what I am saying is wrong. I don't assume I am always right. Far from it.
P.S. In case you don't know how Twitter works in terms of who sees your tweets. When you write a standalone tweet, of course your followers see it. But when you reply to a tweet, only the person you respond to and any followers of that person who are also your followers see it.
This looked extremely suspicious the day it came out. All these weeks later, I cannot believe that Trump's team and DoJ have not been able to get to the bottom of this. I now believe they have looked into it, found nothing wrong, and are exploiting it for commercials like this.
I find it suspicious that this story, rather than moving from a CCTV video smoking gun to an FBI investigation, has moved into a campaign-like commercial, while Trump is still President and can order FBI to investigate. Where is the Trump tweet asking DoJ/FBI to investigate this?
If this video actually catches people committing a heinous crime against Americans, shouldn't the President be deploying all U.S. investigative agencies to catch the criminals (we know their names, they are on govt payroll) rather than asking voters to call their representative?
Biden's Inaugural Speech Leaked
"The threat is nearly invisible in ordinary ways. It's a crisis of confidence. It's a crisis that strikes at the very heart and soul and spirit of our national will. We can see this crisis in the growing doubt about the meaning of our own lives."😜
Biden: "But even with the changes in approach I am going to put in place in late January, people are still going to be getting sick and dying from Covid."
Good to know ahead of time, America, isn't it? How refreshing! Trump would never tell you that. 🤦♂️
1. Layman's Tutorial on How 'Standing' Works in a Lawsuit
Imagine two brothers Dan and Ralph have a family business. Also imagine Ralph has a close friend named Tom. Ralph often helps out Tom with money as needed. Now imagine Dan cheats Ralph out of all his money.
2. Tom is doubly distraught. His friend Ralph got cheated out of all his money, and now Ralph cannot help Tom when he is in need. Even though Dan did something illegal, Tom cannot sue Dan for cheating Ralph. Tom has no 'standing' even as Tom is negatively impacted indirectly.
3. Only Ralph has the 'standing' to sue Dan. Tom can neither sue Dan nor "Dan & Ralph, LLC" to make things right for Ralph and himself.
Think of Dan as the Democratic secretary of state of Pennsylvania, Ralph as the Republican legislature of Pennsylvania, and Tom as Texas.
1. Misgivings About SCOTUS's Dismissal of the Texas Lawsuit
I am not a constitutional scholar, but allow me to dispel a few misgivings about the Texas lawsuit dismissal by SCOTUS, if you will. Read this thread at your own peril. :-)
2. First of all, let me register my disappointment at SCOTUS's summary dismissal of the lawsuit on the grounds of lack of 'standing.' I concur with Alito and Thomas that the case should have been accepted on principle alone, regardless of merit.
3. And the principle is a simple one. For every legal case in the nation, there has to be a recourse to a court of law. Now in matters of disputes between multiple States, SCOTUS has the exclusive jurisdiction, i.e. such a lawsuit can be filed with and only with SCOTUS.