Share this page!

Judd Legum Profile picture
Twitter logo
6 Jul, 6 tweets, 4 min read
1. After 1/6, @Google pledged to cut off donations to members of Congress that voted to overturn the election for at least two years.

But Google's corporate PAC money is still flowing to numerous Republican objectors.

Here is how it works.

popular.info/p/despite-pled…
@Google 2.

3/11/21: Google's PAC reported making a 5K contribution to the Wild and Wonderful PAC

3/23/21: Wild and Wonderful PAC, reported distributing 5K to Senator John Kennedy (R-LA), who voted to overturn the election on January 6

popular.info/p/despite-pled…
3.

3/5/21: Google's PAC reported making a 5K donation to Mitch McConnell's Bluegrass Committee

5/24/21: The Bluegrass Committee distributes 5K to the campaign committee of Senator Cynthia Lummis (R-WY)

popular.info/p/despite-pled…
4. Through these committee-to-committee transfers, corporate PAC money from Google has flowed to at least 14 Republican members of Congress who voted to overturn the election

popular.info/p/despite-pled… Image
5. Other companies that pledged to cut off donations to the 147 objectors but are funding them indirectly through these kinds of transfers include: @DowNewsroom, @ATT, @comcast, @UMG_News, and @Walgreens

popular.info/p/despite-pled…
6. Today is the 6 month anniversary of the 1/6 attack on the Capitol

We will continue to track corporate donations to the members of Congress that voted to overturn the election

For updates and accountability journalism, sign up for the newsletter

➡️ popular.info/subscribe

• • •

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

Keep Current with Judd Legum

Judd Legum 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 @JuddLegum

Judd Legum Profile picture
7 Jul
Trump's business and CFO were just indicted. Trump's response to a bad story is always to concoct another story. Just FYI.
Whether the new story has any connection to reality is beside the point. The purpose is to make noise.

A large section of Trump's "lawsuit" against Facebook consists of attacks against the CDC and complaints that Facebook doesn't allow more misinformation about vaccines
Read 4 tweets
Judd Legum Profile picture
7 Jul
1. In June, @ATT plastered its social media accounts with rainbows and declared its solidarity with the LGBTQ community.

Simultaneously, @ATT quietly sent thousands to anti-LGBTQ politicians in Alabama that are targeting trans youth

popular.info/p/behind-the-r…
@ATT 2. In April, Alabama Gov. Kay Ivey signed a law banning trans youth from participating in school sports.

In early June, @ATT signed a letter opposing that kind of discriminatory legislation.

A few days later, AT&T's corporate PAC donated $5,000 to Ivey

popular.info/p/behind-the-r…
@ATT 3. In June, @ATT emphasized its commitment to addressing the "mental health crisis among LGBTQ+ youth," including a charitable contribution to the @TrevorProject

But the @TrevorProject condemned the Alabama bill as a dangerous attack on trans youth

popular.info/p/behind-the-r…
Read 7 tweets
Judd Legum Profile picture
1 Jul
1. SCOTUS' new decision further undermines the Voting Rights Act & KAGAN is not mincing words: "What is tragic
here is that the Court has (yet again) rewritten—in order
to weaken—a statute that stands as a monument to America’s greatness, and protects against its basest impulses"
"Never has a statute done more to advance the Nation’s highest ideals. And few laws are more vital in the current moment. Yet in the last decade, this Court has treated no statute worse."
"Yet efforts to suppress the minority vote continue. No one would know this from reading the majority opinion. It hails the “good news” that legislative efforts had mostly shifted by the 1980s from vote denial to vote dilution."
Read 6 tweets
Judd Legum Profile picture
1 Jul
1. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court says Cosby's constitutional rights were violated because he was prosecuted after a DA (Castor) promised that he would never be prosecuted for assaulting Constand.

That can only be true if such a promise EXISTED.
2. The only contemporaneous evidence that it existed is a 2005 press release that includes the following line: "District Attorney Castor cautions all parties to this matter that he will reconsider this decision should the need arise."
3. Apart from that there is not one scrap of paper -- not an email, not a memo, not some notes scribbled on the back of a napkin -- that proves such an agreement existed
Read 6 tweets
Judd Legum Profile picture
30 Jun
1. A lot of misinformation is floating around about the nature of the PA Supreme Court's decision on Cosby.

So I want to clarify a few issues.

Let's talk about EXACTLY WHY the court decided it had to invalidate Cosby's trial.

And why their rationale is very weak
2. First there are a lot of lawyers on Twitter saying the court found there was a type of "contract" between the DA (Castor) and Cosby where the DA promised he would never be prosecuted

The PA Supreme Court court did not find that

The court expressly says there was no contract
3. The court found that there was an UNCONDITIONAL PROMISE from the DA not to prosecute Cosby and that Cosby relied on that promise.

And that, despite the absence of an actual agreement, "fairness" requires that the court to honor this "promise"
Read 13 tweets
Judd Legum Profile picture
30 Jun
1. The PA's Supreme Court decision to release Cosby based on a former prosecutor's "agreement" not to prosecute Cosby and instead grant him immunity from prosecution is not legally sound.

Here's why.
2. PA has a very specific process for being granted immunity from prosecution.

AND IT CANNOT BE GRANTED BY A PROSECUTOR.

Rather, a prosecutor has to ask a court to grant immunity

IN COSBY'S CASE THE PROSECUTOR NEVER ASKED
3. So we are basically going off of the former prosecutor's (and Cosby's) word that such an agreement existed. The record is shaky, but IT DOESN'T MATTER. The prosecutor has no power to immunize Cosby unilaterally
Read 10 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!

Like this author's thread?

Get emails when @JuddLegum has new unrolls!

Check out other threads from @JuddLegum!

Read all threads by @JuddLegum

:(