7 days 30 days All time Recent Popular
THE U.S. JUST BANNED ANONYMOUS SHELL COMPANIES

Pardon the all-caps, but the Senate's veto override today means that the U.S. A) just eliminated the primary building block in America's transformation into an offshore haven, and B) passed the most sweeping counter-kleptocracy reforms in decades—potentially ever.

Incredible news, and an incredible way to start 2021. What a moment.


Huge boost to American credibility in the fight against modern kleptocracy. Huge blow to those who'd turned to the U.S. time and again for their laundering needs, and those U.S. states that had transformed into money laundering havens of their own.

Just phenomenal news.

Again, this is a massive testament to all those who exposed the rot these anonymous shell companies led to, especially the journalists who exposed the laundering networks and civil society activists pressuring legislators to make this change (when it seemed next to impossible).
And here is the final stand. The President asserts that the Vice President has authority (presumably unreviewable) to determine which electoral votes count. This is dangerously incorrect, and it's worth going into detail about why. A thread:


This is what @lessig and I have called the "VP Super Power Theory" in our course on disputed presidential elections @Harvard_Law. We do a deep dive into it on the Another Way to Elect a President podcast

What's the backstory of this radical theory of the VP's power? Poor drafting of the Twelfth Amendment, which says: "The President of the Senate shall, in the presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the certificates and the votes shall then be counted."

Note the passive voice: the VP opens the certificates, but who does the counting? (Writing tip: avoid the passive voice, especially when drafting a constitutional provision that allocates critical powers among political actors.)


So, the VP Super Power Theorist argues, the VP is the only actor mentioned in the sentence so it *must* be the VP who does the counting (and thus can reject electors' votes). Wrong. Every single method of interpretation demonstrates otherwise. Let's go through them:
@lornarichardson Big plus one for the @UkNatArchives research guides - they're my go to for any new topic - obviously, for place-based work if there's an @VCH_London entry available (and we know that the east of England is a gap) then that's a useful place to start. Many are on @bho_history 1/x

@UkNatArchives @VCH_London @bho_history Along with lots of other material (there are some useful subject guides for @bho_history here:
https://t.co/loHRv7JvZq - I wrote the Local History one). 2/x

@UkNatArchives @VCH_London @bho_history If you have access, a simple placename search on the Bibliography of British and Irish History will almost certainly pull up anything published in local and national journals. Declaring an interest, I'm a section editor on that, but it is invaluable. 3/x

@UkNatArchives @VCH_London @bho_history With @CHPPC_IHR we've put together some online training/seminars/events which address some key themes (and there are more on the way; please let me know if there's a particular topic you'd like covered): https://t.co/ujY5aYIek8 4/x

@UkNatArchives @VCH_London @bho_history @CHPPC_IHR My colleagues @IHR_Library have put together an excellent guide to free/open access online resources (some grouped under local history but many more are applicable):
I've been thinking about the debate of delayed vs. immediate 2nd dose for some time

Over past week, have become convinced that getting all doses out now is better

Its NOT a no-brainer

Reasonable people can (and do!!) disagree

So here's why my thinking evolved

Thread


Obviously, if you want to stick to the trials (reasonable position), then stay with standard interval

But soon, we'll be confronted with question -- do we give 2nd shot to some people or 1st shot to more people

Is there clinical trial evidence that 1 dose is helpful?

Yes

2/n

Yes

There is compelling data from Pfizer and Moderna trials that after about 10 d after 1 dose, you get 80-90% efficacy

https://t.co/38qlTYP77u

https://t.co/4V8SxM3tU5

So the BIG question is -- is that going to be durable beyond 21 to 28 days?

We don't know for sure

3/n

But while we may not be sure, it doesn't mean we have no idea

Here's one of our nation's most expert immunologists, @VirusesImmunity laying out her assessment of delayed vs immediate 2nd


What I take away from Dr. Iwasaki's thread and broader experience with vaccines is that it its unlikely that a short delay will harm protection

But we can't be sure

So why take this risk at all?

Why not just stay with the clinical trial?

Reasonable question

Here's why

5/9