🚨🚨🚨
THREAD: @DemocraticAGs Co-Chairs MA AG @Maura_Healey & NV AG @AaronDFordNV statement on Republican Attorneys General Association & Republican AGs **Involvement** in the “Stop the Steal” Rally👇🏻
The @RepublicanAGs dark-money policy arm sent out a robocall urging "patriots" to attend yesterday's protests to "continue to fight to protect the integrity of our elections." https://t.co/dMq3OWqvEg
— Jamie Corey (@JamieMCorey) January 7, 2021
Full statement ---> https://t.co/IvxjwocktZ
More from Legal
More severe police injuries and deaths on that one day of rampaging Trumpers than in five years of Anti-Police protests.
You can tell a lot about the stance of a angry crowd by whether they come with shields or pitchforks.
If people protesting police brutality for years had wanted to use their large numbers to attack, maim and kill police, they damn well could have.
But they came to resist police.
Which is completely different.
Why did the police suffer more at the hands of those who claimed to support them and waved their flags than at the hands of those who think they should be defunded or abolished?
Because one group is literally arguing for human dignity and the other glorifies violence.
The people who uncritically support police brutality are those who believe that instrumental violence should be a standard tool in response to those standing opposed to you.
Once you accept that... WHO is standing opposed to you doesn't matter much.
Nearly 140 officers were injured during pro-Trump extremists' Capitol siege \u2014 including officers who sustained brain injuries, smashed spinal discs, one who'll likely lose an eye, and another stabbed with a metal fence stake, the Capitol Police union said.https://t.co/D9jFSkKtJm
— NPR (@NPR) January 28, 2021
You can tell a lot about the stance of a angry crowd by whether they come with shields or pitchforks.
If people protesting police brutality for years had wanted to use their large numbers to attack, maim and kill police, they damn well could have.
But they came to resist police.
Which is completely different.
Why did the police suffer more at the hands of those who claimed to support them and waved their flags than at the hands of those who think they should be defunded or abolished?
Because one group is literally arguing for human dignity and the other glorifies violence.
The people who uncritically support police brutality are those who believe that instrumental violence should be a standard tool in response to those standing opposed to you.
Once you accept that... WHO is standing opposed to you doesn't matter much.
BREAKING: at least six men that provided security for Roger Stone entered the #Capitol during the siege, per a @nytimes visual investigation.
All six are associated with the far-right #OathKeepers militia.
THREAD 1/
Story: https://t.co/abZlcVyaR6
2/ On January 5th, Stone appeared at the Supreme Court, glad-handing and being driven in a go-kart. Later he attended a rally near the White House.
As the @nytimes team shows, his security entourage featured a host of #OathKeepers...
3/ In the morning of the 6th, Stone stood outside the Willard InterContinental hotel, again flanked by men associated with the #OathKeepers.
Some of them, like Rob Minuta, have been named in prior
4/ Interesting detail: while scrutinizing the video of Roger Stone I spotted Rudy Giuliani exiting the same hotel.
Giuliani is accompanied by a man wearing the same outfit as Trump supporter John Eastman & other not-yet ID'd people.
Video source: https://t.co/Rure8TiQTp
5/ Now to the #Capitol: We see a several of Roger Stone's #OathKeeper guards amidst a larger group yelling at police. Video surfaced by the @CTExposers team.👇👇
https://t.co/NWsONDz0OA
All six are associated with the far-right #OathKeepers militia.
THREAD 1/
Story: https://t.co/abZlcVyaR6
2/ On January 5th, Stone appeared at the Supreme Court, glad-handing and being driven in a go-kart. Later he attended a rally near the White House.
As the @nytimes team shows, his security entourage featured a host of #OathKeepers...
3/ In the morning of the 6th, Stone stood outside the Willard InterContinental hotel, again flanked by men associated with the #OathKeepers.
Some of them, like Rob Minuta, have been named in prior
NEW: Rob Minuta guarded Roger Stone Jan 6th...& was later seen at #Capitol siege..
— John Scott-Railton (@jsrailton) February 7, 2021
Now we know he has a history of escorting Trump allies like Flynn & Alex Jones. Also seen in December w/indicted Proud Boy #Spazzo.
THREAD
By @arawnsley
Link: https://t.co/8t38iOmgYP pic.twitter.com/dnRYZGuBCO
4/ Interesting detail: while scrutinizing the video of Roger Stone I spotted Rudy Giuliani exiting the same hotel.
Giuliani is accompanied by a man wearing the same outfit as Trump supporter John Eastman & other not-yet ID'd people.
Video source: https://t.co/Rure8TiQTp
5/ Now to the #Capitol: We see a several of Roger Stone's #OathKeeper guards amidst a larger group yelling at police. Video surfaced by the @CTExposers team.👇👇
https://t.co/NWsONDz0OA
Here's the footage of Roberto Minuta throwing a tantrum at the police, 1/6 at the east side of the Capitol (5:16 in the Youtube video link).
— Capitol Terrorists Exposers (@CTExposers) February 10, 2021
\u27a1\ufe0fhttps://t.co/rulMuaftCm pic.twitter.com/wz6A4zQLYT
You May Also Like
H was always unseen in S2NL :)
Those who exited at 1500 needed money. They can always come back near 969. Those who exited at 230 also needed money. They can come back near 95.
Those who sold L @ 660 can always come back at 360. Those who sold S last week can be back @ 301
Those who exited at 1500 needed money. They can always come back near 969. Those who exited at 230 also needed money. They can come back near 95.
Those who sold L @ 660 can always come back at 360. Those who sold S last week can be back @ 301
Sir, Log yahan.. 13 days patience nhi rakh sakte aur aap 2013 ki baat kar rahe ho. Even Aap Ready made portfolio banakar bhi de do to bhi wo 1 month me hi EXIT kar denge \U0001f602
— BhavinKhengarSuratGujarat (@IntradayWithBRK) September 19, 2021
Neuland 2700 se 1500 & Sequent 330 to 230 kya huwa.. 99% retailers/investors twitter par charcha n EXIT\U0001f602
The entire discussion around Facebook’s disclosures of what happened in 2016 is very frustrating. No exec stopped any investigations, but there were a lot of heated discussions about what to publish and when.
In the spring and summer of 2016, as reported by the Times, activity we traced to GRU was reported to the FBI. This was the standard model of interaction companies used for nation-state attacks against likely US targeted.
In the Spring of 2017, after a deep dive into the Fake News phenomena, the security team wanted to publish an update that covered what we had learned. At this point, we didn’t have any advertising content or the big IRA cluster, but we did know about the GRU model.
This report when through dozens of edits as different equities were represented. I did not have any meetings with Sheryl on the paper, but I can’t speak to whether she was in the loop with my higher-ups.
In the end, the difficult question of attribution was settled by us pointing to the DNI report instead of saying Russia or GRU directly. In my pre-briefs with members of Congress, I made it clear that we believed this action was GRU.
The story doesn\u2019t say you were told not to... it says you did so without approval and they tried to obfuscate what you found. Is that true?
— Sarah Frier (@sarahfrier) November 15, 2018
In the spring and summer of 2016, as reported by the Times, activity we traced to GRU was reported to the FBI. This was the standard model of interaction companies used for nation-state attacks against likely US targeted.
In the Spring of 2017, after a deep dive into the Fake News phenomena, the security team wanted to publish an update that covered what we had learned. At this point, we didn’t have any advertising content or the big IRA cluster, but we did know about the GRU model.
This report when through dozens of edits as different equities were represented. I did not have any meetings with Sheryl on the paper, but I can’t speak to whether she was in the loop with my higher-ups.
In the end, the difficult question of attribution was settled by us pointing to the DNI report instead of saying Russia or GRU directly. In my pre-briefs with members of Congress, I made it clear that we believed this action was GRU.
1/“What would need to be true for you to….X”
Why is this the most powerful question you can ask when attempting to reach an agreement with another human being or organization?
A thread, co-written by @deanmbrody:
2/ First, “X” could be lots of things. Examples: What would need to be true for you to
- “Feel it's in our best interest for me to be CMO"
- “Feel that we’re in a good place as a company”
- “Feel that we’re on the same page”
- “Feel that we both got what we wanted from this deal
3/ Normally, we aren’t that direct. Example from startup/VC land:
Founders leave VC meetings thinking that every VC will invest, but they rarely do.
Worse over, the founders don’t know what they need to do in order to be fundable.
4/ So why should you ask the magic Q?
To get clarity.
You want to know where you stand, and what it takes to get what you want in a way that also gets them what they want.
It also holds them (mentally) accountable once the thing they need becomes true.
5/ Staying in the context of soliciting investors, the question is “what would need to be true for you to want to invest (or partner with us on this journey, etc)?”
Multiple responses to this question are likely to deliver a positive result.
Why is this the most powerful question you can ask when attempting to reach an agreement with another human being or organization?
A thread, co-written by @deanmbrody:
Next level tactic when closing a sale, candidate, or investment:
— Erik Torenberg (@eriktorenberg) February 27, 2018
Ask: \u201cWhat needs to be true for you to be all in?\u201d
You'll usually get an explicit answer that you might not get otherwise. It also holds them accountable once the thing they need becomes true.
2/ First, “X” could be lots of things. Examples: What would need to be true for you to
- “Feel it's in our best interest for me to be CMO"
- “Feel that we’re in a good place as a company”
- “Feel that we’re on the same page”
- “Feel that we both got what we wanted from this deal
3/ Normally, we aren’t that direct. Example from startup/VC land:
Founders leave VC meetings thinking that every VC will invest, but they rarely do.
Worse over, the founders don’t know what they need to do in order to be fundable.
4/ So why should you ask the magic Q?
To get clarity.
You want to know where you stand, and what it takes to get what you want in a way that also gets them what they want.
It also holds them (mentally) accountable once the thing they need becomes true.
5/ Staying in the context of soliciting investors, the question is “what would need to be true for you to want to invest (or partner with us on this journey, etc)?”
Multiple responses to this question are likely to deliver a positive result.
