1/This is a rant I had with someone while texting, and I thought it would make an interesting thread:

2/ Jim, If you come across any information, I still desire to hear any information on the state of our beleaguered union.

@cain_nate My friend Nate Cain and I have worked hundreds of hours with various politicians and legal groups trying to explain the election laws and how they fit together. There are many misperceptions of what happened during this election and what it means.

Simply put, our election laws are an intricate tapestry designed to ensure accuracy and prevent fraud. They work together like parts of a car. But when certain parts fail, the car is just a hunk of scrap iron and plastic. In this case critical parts failed.
2/

You do not have to prove fraud or intent, you just have to show that the election officials were unable to conduct an election that met the law and relevant certification requirements. In this case, the election does not come close to meeting accuracy requirements.
3/

These specifications are found deep in laws like FISMA, HAVA, and state adoptions of EAC guidance. 1 ballot error out of 125,000 or 1 position read error out of 500,000. Just look at the discrepancies between incoming ballot counts and total votes, the system fails.
4/

It is worse in the the swing states in Democrat strongholds but it is bad in many places. You add the apparent losses of ballots through the Mail and error rates in the ‘system’ are staggering. Why do we have these rules? Sure it is to prevent fraud, but......
5/

💥BOOM💥 Linn Wood!! They can't stop what is coming!
Chief Justice John Roberts must resign today. Over the past several weeks, I have met with a courageous whistleblower who has risked his life to tell you the truth. Jeffrey Epstein arranged for the...
Part 1.1

From @jack:

Starting now, we are changing the way we do things at Twitter. Even though we have been following policies we created, that we thought were good and necessary, it just hasn’t had the desired effect of promoting good discourse. Effective immediately, we are changing.

The basic principle that now guides us is that instead of trying to manipulate discourse, we are opening it up, and making ourselves more transparent and accountable, and resisting attempts at censorship of us or our users.

Further, we have been fundamentally operating under the false premise that we, our our news and fact-checking partners, are smarter or better at understanding information than you, our users, are. This is a vain fiction, and we will drop this pretense.

We have long known that we are not just another social media site, but the place where citizens, governments, and organizations communicate with each other, for essential purposes. We have a great responsibility to the public to be open. So, we change to improve.

First: we will no longer proactively delete any content, except for: private information harming a person other than who posted it (e.g. doxxing, revenge porn, etc.), and any content we are legally required to remove.

@JohnCoy29071630 Some people have decided that Wings is against independence, because they don't like what he is now saying. I decided to find out for myself. The first thing that bothered me re SNP was what happened in AS trial.
I hadn't followed the trial at the time.

As time went on I saw more and more posts re the un-fairness of the trial. These were from people I had followed for years. I didn't read Wings much at that time.
Everything was going smoothly for the SNP until these posts started appearing. I began to question what was going on?

This seemed a big conspiratory at first, until I found out that some complainers were in a Watsapp group with someone who worked in the ScotGov, close to NS. This raised the hair on my neck, considering they were not supposed to know each other due to them being anonymous.

I began looking at the links and paperwork that were being tweeted by ppl I followed for years. I didn't like what I was seeing and reading. The ScotGov appeared to be blocking the publication of Alex Salmond's trial paperwork. I had always thought of SNP as open & transparent!

I was shocked by what I was seeing. I was seeing leaked documents, etc. When I started questioning this on twitter, people were posting more links to different documents. I was now getting all different links from different people. I started reading as much as I could.