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?
What a shameful con job this is to incite people President Trump knows will not question any of his actions because they are so in thrall to him as some kind of a savior (as Obama was to some in his base) that they believe he can do no wrong! This is an insult to his base.
Please note the blurb at the bottom of the commercial:

"Paid for by Donald J. Trump for President, Inc. Approved by Donald J. Trump."

This is what we have. A sitting president cutting campaign commercials using footage of an alleged heinous crime that happened on his watch.
Remember, if this is a crime being committed, it is not a crime against Donald J. Trump. It is a crime against the citizens of the United States, which the President is sworn to protect and defend us against, not use as grist for his own campaign commercials.
And as a crime against all citizens of the United States, it is like a terrorist attack on American soil, and the President of the United States can deploy the entire apparatus of the federal government against it, not use his personal campaign outfit to cut campaign commercials.

• • •

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

Keep Current with Bansi Sharma

Bansi Sharma 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!

PDF

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 @bansisharma

24 Dec
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.
Read 14 tweets
24 Dec
1 of 2

Why I Re-Tweet My Own Tweets

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.
Read 4 tweets
23 Dec
"Our darkest days are ahead of us," says the President-elect Joe Biden.

Are you regretting electing him yet, America?
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. 🤦‍♂️
Read 4 tweets
22 Dec
Kraken Getting Unreleased! -- Part 1/2

Kraken is being shoved back in a small box.
What will @SidneyPowell1 do now to keep getting donations?
Kraken Getting Unreleased! -- Part 2/2

Well, well, well. Don't say I didn't warn you all this crap about Kraken was just that -- crap!

Watch the videos in the above two tweets, then see below what I wrote over a month ago.

Did I call it or what?
Read 4 tweets
22 Dec
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.
Read 5 tweets
18 Dec
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.
Read 27 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!