1. One thing that's crucial to remember about Trump's attempt to pressure Brad Raffensperger to "find 11,780 votes" is when that call happened. It did not happen, as many ppl seem to think, while Georgia was still counting or even re-counting votes. alternet.org/more-than-a-do…
2. Instead, Trump's call to Raffensperger (during which he threatened him with criminal prosecution) happened on January 2. At that point, Georgia had already re-counted and hand-recounted all its votes, certified the election results, and its electoral votes had been cast.
3. There was, then, no vote-counting going on. There were no re-counts or audits left to do. The state had certified the election, and the electors had voted, in accordance with Georgia law and the Constitution. The election was done.
4. And yet, despite all that, Trump was pressuring the GA Secretary of State to find him one more vote than he needed to win. Trump was trying to overturn the election results not by working through the courts, but by threatening Raffensperger into finding him votes.
5. The Raffensperger call is a microcosm of Trump's entire approach in Dec./early January: instead of accepting defeat, he organized schemes and pressured people to do things they were not legally or constitutionally allowed to do, all in a desperate quest to cling to power.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Pro-appeasement politicians are scrambling to salvage their position, so they've decided to lie about what ppl were saying about Prigozhin. Exactly no one was calling him "a liberal reformer."
I will never understand why DeSantis didn't hold a big kickoff rally in a Florida football stadium. It would have been covered live by cable news, and would have sent the message, "I'm a normal guy who likes the same things you do," which is a message DeSantis needs to send.
Instead, he launches his campaign in the lost online way possible, risking the kind of glitchiness he ran into, and ensuring the TV coverage of the event would be minimal, since television networks like events with images.
Reading "Trust the Plan," Will Sommer's book about QAnon. It makes clear how absurd it is to argue that YouTube, Twitter, etc. should be obliged to publish the kind of conspiratorial, defamatory, harassing content (often aimed at non-famous ppl) that Q supporters specialized in.
American law is ill-equipped to deal adequately with online defamation and conspiracy nonsense targeting individuals. The notion that on top of this, social-media platforms should be required to publish this kind of content is absolutely bonkers.
The other thing the book makes clear is how completely feckless and cowardly Republican politicians have been when it comes to Q.
Instead of making it clear to their voters it was an absurd, offensive conspiracy theory that had no connection to reality, almost all stayed quiet.
This is just objectively false. It has absolutely not been proven that work requirements lift people out of poverty. In fact, the best studies show work requirements do not increase labor-force participation. Their real impact is to throw eligible ppl off SNAP and Medicaid.
Work requirements sound appealing to lots of people. But here's my recent piece for The Atlantic on why they don't work the way Kevin McCarthy says they do. theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/…
The idea that there are lots of able-bodies ppl out there who aren't working who would start working if you threaten to take away $135 a month in food stamps is on the face of it absurd. What work requirements mostly do is create a lot of pointless paperwork.
This Trump thing is even worse than expected (and I have a high tolerance for Trump's antics).
I mean, setting all else aside, why is the audience packed with Trump supporters in ill-fitting suits?
Having said all this, I don't think Trump insisting the 2020 election was stolen, saying he's going to pardon insurrectionists, saying the US should default on its debt, and bragging about personally ending Roe v. Wade is going to help him beat Biden.
This story shows how tortured the GOP's claims are with regard to Joe Biden. It says there's something suspicious about Biden meeting with Romania's president and praising his anti-corruption efforts while Hunter was shilling for a Romanian who was being accused of bribery.
But surely if the Romanian, Gabriel Popoviciu, had bought influence, Joe Biden should have attacked Romania's anti-corruption efforts rather than praising them, or in some way tried to get Romania to lay off Popoviciu. He did neither, and Popoviciu was convicted in 2016.
More than that, right before Popoviciu was convicted, his attorney in the US tried to set up a meeting with the Romanian government. The meeting never happened, because the govt declined the meeting - again, an odd thing to have happened if Joe Biden was exerting influence.