BREAKING: THREAD: Jack Smith sent out a MASSIVE round of subpoenas December 9th. THEY INCLUDE:
1. Subpoenas to trump campaign officials, with NEW questions about WHO FUNDED LAWYERS for witnesses - a potential investigation into OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE 1/
2. TWO DOZEN CATEGORIES of information communications or information about Dominion and Smartmatic - trying to establish whether anyone knew the conspiracy theories were FALSE. 2/
Info on OTHER TRUMP ENTITIES BESIDES THE SAVE AMERICA PAC: including the Make America Great Again PAC, the Save America Joint Fundraising Committee, and the Trump MAGA Committee - and any groups affiliated with them. 3/
Information on the “Election Defense Fund” - that’s the one the 1/6 committee found out DIDNT ACTUALLY EXIST - and what the hell THEY spent the money on. 4/
MORE INFO on the FRAUDULENT ELECTOR SCHEME: naming more than 100 fake electors in seven states.
It also asks for analysis on the LEGALITY of the scheme. 5/
It demands documents about the FUNDING of the ellipse rallies (that would include GINNI THOMAS.
THREAD: I’ve had MSNBC on for ten minutes and here’s what I’ve heard.
Gabe Gutierrez commenting on the Harris Walz rallies says something to the effect of “well she is being criticized for not doing press conferences or interviews.”
He said this with a straight face, never mentioning Trump failing to do any interviews or press conferences and just one rally.
And no, the one hour “press conference” with hand-picked journalists asking spoon-fed questions off mic from Mar a Lago does not a “press conference” make. Gabe failed to mention Trump lied 162 times in that hour, and left out all the times this week that Harris and Walz DID take questions from reporters. 1/
Next, they criticize Kamala for not having any policy out yet. LOL WHAT?
Then they immediately play a clip OF SOME POLICY shared by Harris at a rally THIS WEEK saying we need comprehensive immigration reform including increasing security and a path to citizenship.
Then MSNBC comes back and asks “IS IT ENOUGH OR DOES SHE NEED TO DEFINE IT MORE”
Omg fuck OFF. We can’t get trump to answer how he plans to deport 11M people while putting babies in tender age facilities and you’re gonna sit here and WONDER what Harris’s policy is? SHE’S BEEN VP FOR OVER THREE YEARS. START THERE.
or maybe wait another two weeks for trump’s health care plan. 2/
Then they pivot to “Oh well trump is on truth social questioning Harris’ crowd size.”
First of all, no he’s not. He’s accusing her of using AI to make her crowds look larger. And don’t get me started on how trump told the Park Service to lie about his crowd size.
But the reporter actually said Trump’s claims about AI “don’t really have merit.”
Don’t really have merit? How about “ridiculous lie”? 3/
NEW: THREAD: Just noticed that the Attorneys General and Secretaries of State of Arizona and Michigan have had their blue check marks removed. What’s going on? 1/
So I checked other states where fraudulent electors have been indicted. Wisconsin AG lost his verification badge. 2/
First, I’d like to point out that Biden made 18 appearances in this time period. Not three. And Biden has undergone a neurological exam, and has done so every year since he’s been president. So this is BS. 2/
Next, you’re really gonna go with “seemed” here? Excellent journalism. 3/
Hoo boy. Special counsel just provided Judge Cannon with all the examples of how dangerous Trump’s rhetoric is in support of his motion to modify the bail conditions. Check this out: 1/
This article from the Times says Trump has more money that Biden. I don’t see a source here, but it must be the FEC, right? I mean, this is the @nytimes. They would just print stuff willy nilly, would they? 1/
Hmm. Interesting. I’m listening. What’s your source, though? Must be the FEC right? 2/
Oh. Well, wait. What? Your source for Trump numbers is TRUMP? Think you maybe shoulda brought that up a few paragraphs ago? Or in the headline, perhaps? 3/
THREAD: SCOTUS RAHIMI: TW/CW: DOMESTIC VIOLENCE: I’m relieved SCOTUS ruled 8 - 1 that a domestic abuser under a restraining order cannot own a firearm, but I’m equally appalled at Thomas’ repugnant dissent. Here’s why. 1/
Thomas writes that the law in question “is not triggered by a criminal conviction or a person’s criminal history, therefore it strips an individual of HIS (interesting use of pronoun there) ability to possess firearms and ammunition without due process.” With zero due respect Clarence, to hell with you and your selective due process. 2/
A conviction isn’t as straightforward as that. Most battered partners aren’t out from under the control of their abuser until much later. In mid-December 2019, my ex was arrested for felony assault domestic violence. That night, he had been drunk and erratic. As was our ritual, I locked myself in the bedroom until he slept it off. But this time he followed and banged on the door nearly breaking it down. 3/