Post

@Heritage

@DrJBhattacharya

@DrJBhattacharya

@MartinKulldorff

@RepRosendale

More from @LauraPowellEsq

Laura Powell

@LauraPowellEsq

Feb 24

🧵 UPDATE on the lawsuit against the executive affecting trans people in the military.

Judge Reyes called a hearing this afternoon, because the plaintiffs filed their amended complaint today, five days after it was due. The attorneys were adding new plaintiffs and said they had issues communicating with them.

Judge Reyes decided the solution is to give plaintiffs a do-over so that they file a new motion for a preliminary injunction next week. (She used the analogy of shaking an Etch-a-Sketch to start over.) 1/x

After addressing the issues around the briefing schedule, Judge Reyes questioned attorneys for both sides on what arguments they intended to make around the definition of “sex.”

At the hearing last Wednesday, Reyes raised this topic and lectured the defense attorneys on her belief that there are more than two sexes. She then ordered the parties to submit supplemental briefing on the topic. Plaintiffs filed their brief last Friday, and defendants (Trump et al) were supposed to file their response this coming Friday.

It seems unusual to me that the judge expected defendants to respond orally in court to these arguments, when they haven’t had a chance to draft their brief, especially given the fact that she was announcing they would start anew with with a new preliminary injunction motion. 2/x

Judge Reyes noted that the government definition revolved around the type of reproductive cells a person makes, which she believed to be incorrect: “My understanding is that according to scientists, determining what sex someone is, is not dependent on their reproductive cell.” She said that she believed that reproductive cells were just one factor, and that anatomy and chromosomes are also taken into account when determining a person’s sex.

She said that she would not make any determinations on the topic of the definition of sex without hearing expert testimony. 3/x

Read 6 tweets

Laura Powell

@LauraPowellEsq

Nov 6, 2024

A squirrel ran across the stage while everyone was waiting for Kamala's concession speech. 👀

For those questioning whether this is a real video, multiple videos of the squirrel of been shared.

I do appreciate the skepticism! This link will take you to the moment the squirrel enters the frame. Check the live chat, where people start commenting on it. 🙂
youtube.com/live/WckEFzGku…

Read 4 tweets

Laura Powell

@LauraPowellEsq

Oct 21, 2024

Kamala Harris was admitted to law school under a program for students “who have experienced major life hurdles, such as educational disadvantage, economic hardship, or disability.”

Kamala Harris’s mother came from the highest caste in India, but by moving to the U.S. and Canada, obtaining a prestigious degree, marrying a future Stanford professor, having a successful career as a cancer researcher, and sending her daughter to private schools, her daughter became unusually disadvantaged?

Strange how that works.

In 1992, three years after Kamala graduated from Hastings Law School (a public university), there was a controversy after the dean of the law school realized the extent of student group involvement in admissions to the program for disadvantaged students (called LEOP).

Students who claimed to be eligible for the LEOP because of some special hardship they suffered would have their claims of being disadvantaged verified via a phone call by members of the student organization associated with the applicant’s race. The phone interviews were used by some students to screen out conservative candidates—to avoid future “Clarence Thomases,” as one student explained.

This would have been the process in place when Kamala Harris applied to law school in 1986. According to her resume, she also served as President of the “Black Law Student’s [sic] Association,” so she likely participated in the process of selecting admittees to the LEOP program while she was a law student as well.

While the program was advertised as a class-based affirmative action program—which Kamala Harris wouldn’t have qualified for—in practice it was based on race and politics, during her time.

In 2004, Kamala's mother recounted to an LA Times reporter how she was taken aback when an educator didn't realize Kamala came from a privileged background.

h/t @CardioNP

Read 5 tweets

Laura Powell

@LauraPowellEsq

Oct 16, 2024

People have expressed an interest in hearing more dirt on Kamala Harris’s past, so I am collecting my posts that contain information that has been underreported or not reported elsewhere into one thread. 🧵

https://x.com/LauraPowellEsq/status/1821369361904628057

In this thread, you will find detailed information about Kamala Harris’s misuse of Biden’s FEC candidate ID number in order to take possession of his campaign funds. A complaint has been filed with the FEC but will not be resolved before the election.

https://x.com/LauraPowellEsq/status/1821369361904628057

https://x.com/LauraPowellEsq/status/1824540254285799489

Here is a summary from a longtime independent California politician Kamala Harris’s violation of campaign finance laws when she was running for District Attorney. (Harmeet Dhillon’s interview with Tucker Carlson has more information on that issue.)

https://x.com/LauraPowellEsq/status/1824540254285799489

Read 9 tweets

Laura Powell

@LauraPowellEsq

Aug 8, 2024

UPDATE: Last night, Kamala Harris personally filed an updated Statement of Candidacy (aka Form 2) to designate Tim Walz as her running mate.

Since she used Biden’s personal candidate ID number (P80000722) instead of her own (P00009423), the FEC records are convoluted. Her newly filed Form 2 shows up on Biden's personal FEC page. But if you look at the 2024 election cycle, Biden is erased and replaced with Harris, as if he was never never running for President.

Looking at Biden’s campaign committee’s FEC record, it’s now associated with both Biden’s and Harris’s candidacies for President for the period of 2020-2022. But that makes no sense, because Harris’s Presidential run in 2020 was never linked to Biden’s, and she ceased her campaign for President in 2020 and did not run again until 2024. Now Harris’s personal FEC candidate ID number (P00009423)—which is supposed to follow her for all Presidential campaigns for life—is somehow linked to Biden’s Presidential campaign in 2020. Only her Vice-Presidential campaign was ever linked to Biden’s, but that is separate from any Presidential campaigns.

The current 2023-2024 FEC record for “Biden for President” (aka “Harris for President,” ID number C00703975) is linked to two Presidential candidates. Both are both named “Kamala Harris.” One of these candidates is associated with Harris’s candidate ID number (P00009423), and the other “Kamala Harris” is associated with Biden’s candidate ID number (P80000722).

The Statement of Candidacy that Kamala Harris filed on July 29, using Biden’s personal candidate ID number (P80000722), now shows up under Harris’s ID number. But last night’s filing for that same candidate—number P80000722—shows up for the other “Kamala Harris” who is running for President. (Based on what happened previously, I suspect the FEC will shift these records in the future, to make it seem like there aren’t so many discrepancies between the names and the ID numbers.)

Confused? That’s because these filings from Harris are irregular. If Kamala Harris had used her own candidate ID number, like every other candidate in modern history, this wouldn’t have been so complicated, but then it would have been difficult to make the case that she’s entitled to Biden’s war chest. Undoubtedly, these filings are trying to circumvent those pesky campaign finance laws.

By the way, since Walz has never run for President, he doesn’t have his own FEC candidate ID for a Presidential run. According the the logic of Harris’s supporters, Walz is equally entitled to any funds from the campaign committee associated with ID number C00703975. And, just as Harris felt entitled to file an amended Statement of Candidacy using Biden’s personal candidate ID number because she was the Vice Presidential candidate, Walz could do the same, using Biden’s personal candidate ID number to run for President if he wanted to. The Democrats could pass this campaign down in perpetuity, without even obtaining the formal agreement of the prior candidate.

This reminds me of a system of government that isn’t considered anything like a democracy.

Normally, I would include helpful screenshots to document and illustrate all the information I provided, but I just don't have the time right now. Sorry to disappoint! Maybe I will sign up for subscriptions so that I can find more time for this kind of reporting.

As I predicted, the FEC changed the way the filings appear on their website, so it doesn’t look quite as strange. Yesterday, there were two separate pages for Presidential candidates with the name Kamala Harris—one with Biden’s ID number and one with Harris’s. Today, Harris is linked only to her own ID number, and the new Statement of Candidacy is linked to her candidacy, despite the fact that she used Biden’s ID number instead of her own. (It also shows up on Biden’s page, but under “raw electronic filings,” meaning it will likely be dropped from his page at some point.)

Read 5 tweets

Laura Powell

@LauraPowellEsq

May 10, 2024

San Francisco’s managed alcohol program provides homeless alcoholics with housing, meals, activities (including crafts and outings to Giants games), and a quantity of alcoholic beverages determined by their “need and desire,” with no expectation of reducing consumption. With a reported budget of $5 million for 20 beds (half set aside for Latinx or indigenous people), it would be cheaper to accommodate these people in all-inclusive resorts.

Advocates had wanted managed alcohol programs in San Francisco for years. In 2020, SF Dept of Public Health used Covid as an excuse to shut down their sobering center and set up an alcohol program in just 48 hours. Impressive how quickly the government can move when motivated.

Here the lead physician for SF’s managed alcohol program (MAP) explains how they justify giving alcohol to alcoholics ethically. They simply do not consider abstaining from alcohol as a possibility. Instead, they allow patients to exercise “autonomy” by making their own choices.