https://t.co/9MgwobVvYS
I know he\u2019s a blowhard, @greg_doucette, but this is inciting violence, no?
— ScubaVal #VoteGeorgiaVote (@MajikaZulJin) January 2, 2021
The audience has been standing by with itchy fingers. https://t.co/SpZ5XTNn7M
No
@greg_doucette Sedition finally? https://t.co/34vfNIPTPY
— grumpy_gator (@jonb13x) January 2, 2021
https://t.co/9MgwobVvYS
1️⃣ intended to cause, and
2️⃣ reasonably likely to cause
3️⃣ imminent
4️⃣ lawless action
It needs all 4 elements
If any of those 4 are missing, it's First-Amendment protected speech
And constitutionally protected speech is never sedition
Um, this doesn\u2019t satisfy all four elements?
— Alex (@arg11) January 2, 2021
4 minutes from now is imminent
4 hours from now might be imminent but probably is not
4 days from now definitely is not https://t.co/l0MwTYLCtu
Overturning the election would be a lawless action, wouldn't it?
— Harley Quinn (@HarleyVicQuinn) January 2, 2021
And what Trump is trying to get Pence and Congressional Republicans to do on January 6 is imminent, isn't it?
I would think this qualifies. But you're the expert.
It has to look like the group that planned to kidnap the governor of MI? They had the four elements?
— Marquis Lafayette: "Constitutional" "Lawyer" (@RenegadeSci) January 2, 2021
It's likely 1️⃣ doesn't exist either https://t.co/c0sU4sVL2f
Which part doesn't it meet? My layman's understanding would suggest it does, so I'm wondering where the disconnect is
— Max FKA LastGeeksDying (@Titanmatrix) January 2, 2021
No wonder y'all get caricatured https://t.co/KUpByOufiU
This needs to be prosecuted. In any reasonable estimation, statements intended to cause this kind of action any time in the near future should be considered "imminent." I consider the next 3 weeks to be in the "imminent" timeframe.
— GrahamIsThisCat (@GrahamThis) January 2, 2021
Bye now 👋 https://t.co/2RqfdWJzei
I think I'm done following apologists for terrorism.
— GrahamIsThisCat (@GrahamThis) January 2, 2021
Can we at least say Gohmert is \u201cflirting\u201d with incitement? We saw how the Proud Boys pounced on Trump saying \u201cstand back and stand by\u201d. I worry Gohmert\u2019s words will lead to violence on the streets. If that happens and they sing his praises will that qualify as incitement? THX!
— Rebel Pony (@Corri_Girl) January 2, 2021
If someone has time to think and reflect on what was said, instead of instantly reacting, it's not incitement https://t.co/TfgJ8GPEs5
...wait, really? So if I said something that's otherwise incitement, but staple "in 30 days" onto the end, it's no longer incitement because it's not imminent?
— Fen-nic Hartley \U0001f51e (@nichartley) January 2, 2021
More from T. Greg Doucette
We all have a merry chuckle as they're voted down and we watch preparations for Biden's inauguration continue
Trumpists don't have enough votes in either chamber
Sort of
You'd only get Acting President Nancy Pelosi if the vote counting wasn't done by January 20th when Trump's term ends
1/
Basically, if e.g. Arizona's Biden votes were thrown out, Dems would object to Arkansas or some other state soon after Arizona
When the chambers separate to consider the objection, the House would refer the question to committee first
2/
@philski68
And the committee would intentionally never meet, unless / until there was some deal worked out to let the vote-counting continue without issue
So definitely possible, a point of leverage for Dems, but still exceptionally unlikely
3/3
@philski68
Congress can do whatever it wants – if both chambers agree to it
Trumpists don't have enough votes in either chamber
What would the legal result of the proposed objections by the six Senators (need House & Senate) be?
— Alexa O'Brien (@alexadobrien) January 2, 2021
Sort of
You'd only get Acting President Nancy Pelosi if the vote counting wasn't done by January 20th when Trump's term ends
1/
And if they do manage it Pelosi takes over? Is that right?
— Phil Wheatley \u26bd\ufe0f (@philski68) January 3, 2021
Basically, if e.g. Arizona's Biden votes were thrown out, Dems would object to Arkansas or some other state soon after Arizona
When the chambers separate to consider the objection, the House would refer the question to committee first
2/
@philski68
And the committee would intentionally never meet, unless / until there was some deal worked out to let the vote-counting continue without issue
So definitely possible, a point of leverage for Dems, but still exceptionally unlikely
3/3
@philski68
Congress can do whatever it wants – if both chambers agree to it
Cruz\u2019s call for a ten day audit/election committee... there no legal authority for this to even occur correct?
— Justin Rakowski (@JustinRakowski) January 3, 2021
Strongly desirable, but 0% likelihood IMO
I'd love for the President's pardon powers to be restricted to before the election
Very low
I won't put them at zero because you never know what could theoretically happen, but the last amendment was largely accidental and still 28 years ago
The last intentional amendment was ratified 49 years ago
No
People shouldn't end up with fewer rights by banding together, that's just
Don't know the precise verbiage, but it would require the Wyoming Rule for House seats and expand the Senate to 3 Senators per
Yes: that's the purpose of the House, and the # of electoral votes for President being rooted in the
I'd love for the President's pardon powers to be restricted to before the election
@greg_doucette What's the likelihood and desirability of a new constitutional amendment which says that presidents cannot pardon anybody in the last 100 days of each term?
— Evergreen JM \U0001f1fa\U0001f1f8 \U0001f310 (@ElectronJ2) December 24, 2020
Very low
I won't put them at zero because you never know what could theoretically happen, but the last amendment was largely accidental and still 28 years ago
The last intentional amendment was ratified 49 years ago
What's the chances we ever see a Constitutional Amendment in our lifetimes, at this rate?
— Jeremy (@11JustBreathe11) December 24, 2020
No
People shouldn't end up with fewer rights by banding together, that's just
This one maybe: https://t.co/apWQyLD2i3
— Evergreen JM \U0001f1fa\U0001f1f8 \U0001f310 (@ElectronJ2) December 24, 2020
Don't know the precise verbiage, but it would require the Wyoming Rule for House seats and expand the Senate to 3 Senators per
If you could unilaterally add an amendment, what would it be?
— KJJBAA (@KJJBAA) December 24, 2020
Yes: that's the purpose of the House, and the # of electoral votes for President being rooted in the
Yes Wyoming rule. No on 3 senators. The senate is broken now that CA has 39M people and Wyoming has 500k. Adding more senators doesn\u2019t fix that. Need to add some semblance of balance.
— Bryan Duva (@duva60) December 24, 2020
Maximum of 2 hours of floor debate per objection
No requirement to use the whole 2 hours
Doubt it. I think you'll get maybe an hour with Arizona so Congresscritters can get their viral C-SPAN clips, then they'll get bored with it and move on
Correct
The Speaker and the Vice President preside over their respective chambers like normal, then decide who talks
I'd need to go through whatever rules the House adopts tomorrow, they're not my forte
No requirement to use the whole 2 hours
@greg_doucette sure you've answered this question somewhere down the line but is there a 2 hour recess for EACH objection or are all objections handled under one 2 hour recess?
— ReediculousS (@Rbd9787) January 3, 2021
Doubt it. I think you'll get maybe an hour with Arizona so Congresscritters can get their viral C-SPAN clips, then they'll get bored with it and move on
So we are looking at 24 hours of debate then?
— Subtle Clever Username (@Noneya_Mindyers) January 3, 2021
Correct
And each person only gets 5 minutes to speak (also probably per objection), so the long-winded halfwits (Gohmert) won't be able to drag it out very long.
— Mithras Angel (place blue checkmark here) (@mithrasangel) January 3, 2021
The Speaker and the Vice President preside over their respective chambers like normal, then decide who talks
Who gets discretion on who talks. Is It just objectors or counterpoints may also be allotted time?
— WillisisCray (@WillisisCray) January 3, 2021
I'd need to go through whatever rules the House adopts tomorrow, they're not my forte
can pelosi just ignore everybody
— Michael Durkin (@mdurkin86) January 3, 2021
The midterm Congress doesn't matter; it would be the Congress elected in 2024 that takes office on 3 January 2025
But yes, both chambers of Congress acting together have always had the power to install a President. See Hayes-Tilden 1876
Someone has to have the power. Would you rather it be the President? 5 justices of the Supreme Court?
It's functionally impossible to have an election where one party wins the presidency but neither chamber of Congress, and 218 Representatives + 51 Senators agree to toss results
The issue is who is responsible for counting the electoral votes and confirming they're legit. Congress exclusively has that power, and the sheer volume of people that have to be convinced to ignore the results confirms it's the right branch to have it
@Pogman42
If people want to abolish the Electoral College, go for it
But it requires 2/3 of the House + 2/3 of the Senate + 3/4 of state legislatures. It's not an attainable goal, and will not be an attainable goal in our lifetimes
Meanwhile, that energy could be better used elsewhere
Likely unconstitutional, and unenforceable even if it were not
But yes, both chambers of Congress acting together have always had the power to install a President. See Hayes-Tilden 1876
So if the house had a Republican majority\u2014which it may well in 2022, especially given the gerrymandering and structural minority bias\u2014would they legally be able to stop the transition in 2024 of a Democratic president-elect? https://t.co/L2o4ZVdfXO
— zeynep tufekci (@zeynep) January 2, 2021
Someone has to have the power. Would you rather it be the President? 5 justices of the Supreme Court?
It's functionally impossible to have an election where one party wins the presidency but neither chamber of Congress, and 218 Representatives + 51 Senators agree to toss results
Historically, why is this sort of outcome allowed to be a thing? Maybe it's a failure in my imagination, but why would congress be allowed such power?
— Pogman42 (@Pogman42) January 3, 2021
The issue is who is responsible for counting the electoral votes and confirming they're legit. Congress exclusively has that power, and the sheer volume of people that have to be convinced to ignore the results confirms it's the right branch to have it
@Pogman42
If people want to abolish the Electoral College, go for it
But it requires 2/3 of the House + 2/3 of the Senate + 3/4 of state legislatures. It's not an attainable goal, and will not be an attainable goal in our lifetimes
Meanwhile, that energy could be better used elsewhere
It\u2019s just weird to me that we\u2019re able to elect senators and congressman themselves without this level of confusion but the electors create some kind of unique challenge requiring resolution by congress in some instances
— Bryan Duva (@duva60) January 3, 2021
Likely unconstitutional, and unenforceable even if it were not
What about the NPVIC? https://t.co/arg8V3QPih
— Phil Traum (@TraumPhil) January 3, 2021
More from For later read
Wow, Morgan McSweeney again, Rachel Riley, SFFN, Center for Countering Digital Hate, Imran Ahmed, JLM, BoD, Angela Eagle, Tracy-Ann Oberman, Lisa Nandy, Steve Reed, Jon Cruddas, Trevor Chinn, Martin Taylor, Lord Ian Austin and Mark Lewis. #LabourLeaks #StarmerOut 24 tweet🧵
Morgan McSweeney, Keir Starmer’s chief of staff, launched the organisation that now runs SFFN.
The CEO Imran Ahmed worked closely with a number of Labour figures involved in the campaign to remove Jeremy as leader.
Rachel Riley is listed as patron. https://t.co/nGY5QrwBD0
SFFN claims that it has been “a project of the Center For Countering Digital Hate” since 4 May 2020. The relationship between the two organisations, however, appears to date back far longer. And crucially, CCDH is linked to a number of figures on the Labour right. #LabourLeaks
Center for Countering Digital Hate registered at Companies House on 19 Oct 2018, the organisation’s only director was Morgan McSweeney – Labour leader Keir Starmer’s chief of staff. McSweeney was also the campaign manager for Liz Kendall’s leadership bid. #LabourLeaks #StarmerOut
Sir Keir - along with his chief of staff, Morgan McSweeney - held his first meeting with the Jewish Labour Movement (JLM). Deliberately used the “anti-Semitism” crisis as a pretext to vilify and then expel a leading pro-Corbyn activist in Brighton and Hove
Morgan McSweeney, Keir Starmer’s chief of staff, launched the organisation that now runs SFFN.
The CEO Imran Ahmed worked closely with a number of Labour figures involved in the campaign to remove Jeremy as leader.
Rachel Riley is listed as patron. https://t.co/nGY5QrwBD0
SFFN claims that it has been “a project of the Center For Countering Digital Hate” since 4 May 2020. The relationship between the two organisations, however, appears to date back far longer. And crucially, CCDH is linked to a number of figures on the Labour right. #LabourLeaks
Center for Countering Digital Hate registered at Companies House on 19 Oct 2018, the organisation’s only director was Morgan McSweeney – Labour leader Keir Starmer’s chief of staff. McSweeney was also the campaign manager for Liz Kendall’s leadership bid. #LabourLeaks #StarmerOut
Sir Keir - along with his chief of staff, Morgan McSweeney - held his first meeting with the Jewish Labour Movement (JLM). Deliberately used the “anti-Semitism” crisis as a pretext to vilify and then expel a leading pro-Corbyn activist in Brighton and Hove
I’ve asked Byers to clarify, but as I read this tweet, it seems that Bret Stephens included an unredacted use of the n-word in his column this week to make a point, and the column got spiked—maybe as a result?
Four times. The column used the n-word (in the context of a quote) four times. https://t.co/14vPhQZktB
For context: In 2019, a Times reporter was reprimanded for several incidents of racial insensitivity on a trip with high school students, including one in which he used the n-word in a discussion of racial slurs.
That incident became public late last month, and late last week, after 150 Times employees complained about how it had been handled, the reporter in question resigned.
In the course of all that, the Times' executive editor said that the paper does not "tolerate racist language regardless of intent.” This was the quote that Bret Stephens was pushing back against in his column. (Which, again, was deep-sixed by the paper.)
Stephens goes on in his column (which never saw light of day) to cite famous Lee Atwater quote that uses racial slur, and which NYT has cited \u201cat least seven times.\u201d
— Dylan Byers (@DylanByers) February 11, 2021
"Is this now supposed to be a scandal?\u201d he asks.
...
Four times. The column used the n-word (in the context of a quote) four times. https://t.co/14vPhQZktB
That is correct. In his draft he quotes Atwater using the word (4 times) and he does not redact it.
— Dylan Byers (@DylanByers) February 11, 2021
For context: In 2019, a Times reporter was reprimanded for several incidents of racial insensitivity on a trip with high school students, including one in which he used the n-word in a discussion of racial slurs.
That incident became public late last month, and late last week, after 150 Times employees complained about how it had been handled, the reporter in question resigned.
In the course of all that, the Times' executive editor said that the paper does not "tolerate racist language regardless of intent.” This was the quote that Bret Stephens was pushing back against in his column. (Which, again, was deep-sixed by the paper.)
You May Also Like
A brief analysis and comparison of the CSS for Twitter's PWA vs Twitter's legacy desktop website. The difference is dramatic and I'll touch on some reasons why.
Legacy site *downloads* ~630 KB CSS per theme and writing direction.
6,769 rules
9,252 selectors
16.7k declarations
3,370 unique declarations
44 media queries
36 unique colors
50 unique background colors
46 unique font sizes
39 unique z-indices
https://t.co/qyl4Bt1i5x
PWA *incrementally generates* ~30 KB CSS that handles all themes and writing directions.
735 rules
740 selectors
757 declarations
730 unique declarations
0 media queries
11 unique colors
32 unique background colors
15 unique font sizes
7 unique z-indices
https://t.co/w7oNG5KUkJ
The legacy site's CSS is what happens when hundreds of people directly write CSS over many years. Specificity wars, redundancy, a house of cards that can't be fixed. The result is extremely inefficient and error-prone styling that punishes users and developers.
The PWA's CSS is generated on-demand by a JS framework that manages styles and outputs "atomic CSS". The framework can enforce strict constraints and perform optimisations, which is why the CSS is so much smaller and safer. Style conflicts and unbounded CSS growth are avoided.
Legacy site *downloads* ~630 KB CSS per theme and writing direction.
6,769 rules
9,252 selectors
16.7k declarations
3,370 unique declarations
44 media queries
36 unique colors
50 unique background colors
46 unique font sizes
39 unique z-indices
https://t.co/qyl4Bt1i5x
PWA *incrementally generates* ~30 KB CSS that handles all themes and writing directions.
735 rules
740 selectors
757 declarations
730 unique declarations
0 media queries
11 unique colors
32 unique background colors
15 unique font sizes
7 unique z-indices
https://t.co/w7oNG5KUkJ
The legacy site's CSS is what happens when hundreds of people directly write CSS over many years. Specificity wars, redundancy, a house of cards that can't be fixed. The result is extremely inefficient and error-prone styling that punishes users and developers.
The PWA's CSS is generated on-demand by a JS framework that manages styles and outputs "atomic CSS". The framework can enforce strict constraints and perform optimisations, which is why the CSS is so much smaller and safer. Style conflicts and unbounded CSS growth are avoided.
