Not all Democrats favor or do all of these things, but all are supported by many prominent Democrats and large parts of the party:
1) vote against certifying electoral college votes in the last 3 GOP wins, including in states GOP won by >20 points; 2) Aggressively seek to keep Cornell West, Jill Stein, and even Donald Trump off ballots;

After carefully reviewing the recent batch of SCOTUS opinions, I have reached the following conclusions--most of which seem to go against the grain:
1. Presidents will not soon be ordering the assassination of their political opponents, at least not in large numbers;
1/4 2. You can be punished for breaking into the U.S. capitol;
3. Regulatory agencies will continue to employ thousands of expert (& non-expert) bureaucrats who will continue to exert remarkable control over our daily lives;
4. The President can be prosecuted for unofficial acts;
2/4

In another thread, , I explain why payments to Stormy Daniels were not a violation of the Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA). In this thread, I'll explain why no FECA reporting obligations were violated, and why the prosecution's theory makes no sense. /1

https://x.com/CommishSmith/status/1796795736438272303

M. Cohen testified that Trump wanted to keep Daniels allegations under wraps until after the election. Prosecutors claim they therefore illegally did not report the campaign expenditure, and by doing so intended to, and did, have "the purpose of influencing an election." /2

Let's take a stab... Falsifying business records under NY law is a misdemeanor, unless done to hide a crime. Bragg says that crime was a violation of the Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA), or of a NY statute making it illegal to influence an election by "unlawful" means./1

https://twitter.com/HistoryBoomer/status/1796385063254274557

But if the latter, what is the "unlawful means?" An alleged violation of FECA. So it comes down to FECA. There are two potential violations here. One is acceptance of an unlawful contribution by the campaign. The other is incorrect reporting of a contribution by the campaign. /2

Judge Merchan has so restricted my testimony that defense has decided not to call me. Now, it’s elementary that the judge instructs the jury on the law, so I understand his reluctance. /1 But the Federal Election Campaign Act is very complex. Even Antonin Scalia—a pretty smart guy, even you hate him—once said “this [campaign finance] law is so intricate that I can’t figure it out. /2

/1 I appreciate @DavidAFrench and @whignewtons giving me an extended shoutout discussing the Trump indictment last week @thedispatch @advopinions. I want to take the FEC issue up again w/ David, because I respect him and because we'll need his pro-1st A. voice in future fights. /2 David questions the wisdom of the indictment, but believes that federal campaign finance law was violated by Trump Org's payments to Stormy Daniels. And he's got a precedent on his side--the Dist. Ct. judge let basically the same theory go to trial in the John Edwards case.

Early voting is already underway in many states. We're 6 weeks out from "election day." Early voting should be dramatically cut back; we should re-establish election day voting as the norm, and early and absentee voting as necessary but limited exceptions. Here's why: /1 What would you think if jurors started voting midway through the trial, before hearing all the evidence, and couldn't change their votes? In response, it's claimed that early voters are the hard core partisan who won't change their votes. /2

Re Alaska and ranked choice voting (RCV):

Nearly 60% of voters ranked one of the Repubs, Palin or Begich, as their first choice. Yet Peltola (Dem) wins. Odd, yet there's nothing inherently wrong with that--it's possible that many Begich voters prefer Peltola to Palin. 1/8 Of course, there may have been confusion as to how the system worked that caused many Begich voters--over 11K--to list no second choice, and Peltola won by just over 5K votes. 2/8

Yesterday I tweeted out a number of reasons why we should encourage in-person voting. Some demanded sources for certain propositions. So here goes: /1 Absentee balloting is more prone to fraud. CALTECH/MIT VOTING TECH. PROJECT, VOTING: WHAT IS, WHAT COULD BE (2001); UNITED STATES ELECTORAL ASSISTANCE COMMISSION, AN INITIAL REVIEW AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FUTURE STUDY (2006) /2

I believe that we should have options for absentee and early in-person voting for those who need them. However, voting on election day should be the presumptive norm.

Here's why we should be discouraging absentee voting and encouraging in-person voting on election day /1 Absentee balloting is more prone to fraud. Fraud is rare, but it is more common among absentee ballots. /2

Indeed. I'll try a little response to @jonathanchait in detail.

https://twitter.com/LukeIFS/status/1520131964996657154

1) Of course there was no "smoking gun" of the Obama WH ordering harassment of tea party groups. As I noted at the time, it wasn't necessary. "Will no one rid me of this turbulent priest," said Henry II. And soon several did. Is Chait that naive? wsj.com/articles/SB100…