“Why fear the people who were smart enough to pick you?” (*Listen*)
Much of Twitter is misunderstanding Bruce Castor’s speech at Trump’s impeachment trial because much of Twitter is absolutely NOT Bruce Castor’s audience.
This man is on it. He knows he only needs to keep *over 1/3 with him. Then more so, he needs the American nation on his side.
“Why fear the people who were smart enough to pick you?” (*Listen*)
More from Maajid أبو عمّار
China’s Elite Capture:
- Over 600 Chinese Communist Party (CCP) members at 19 branches of HSBC & Standard Chartered
- 123 CCP at Pfizer & AstraZeneca (coronavirus vaccines)
- Defence firms Airbus, Boeing & Rolls-Royce employed hundreds of
“In the nine months to September, 14 Chinese nationals were charged over alleged spying offences and the Trump administration last week changed its visa rules so members of the Chinese Communist Party and their families can stay or get travel documents for only a month.”
“Last week, John Ratcliffe, the US Director of National Security, warned that China posed the 'greatest threat to democracy and freedom' since the Second World War and was striving to dominate 'the planet economically, militarily and technologically'.”
it’s been 6 months since my 5 day hunger strike to highlight history’s most technologically sophisticated genocide in china (https://t.co/Vu8BVi2w4q)
yet still there’s not been a single mainstream UK newspaper frontpage on the Uyghur plight
never stop asking WHY?
Self-evident.
By @MichaelPSenger for @tabletmag
Under Article III, US Supreme Court settles disputes between 2 or more states
Due to safe harbour, Trump’s remaining legal routes are narrow after
Brief analysis:
The Texas case is about the contested swing states’ executive & judicial branches VS their legislatures, on mail-in ballot rules
On Tuesday before safe harbour, SCOTUS rejected a similar lawsuit brought by Republican Rep. Mike Kelly
But a 3rd & eerily similar case has been with Justice Alito (as circuit judge for PA) & the Supreme Court since before the election. It’s about this very same executive & judiciary VS legislature dispute. That case, PA Republican Party vs Boockvar, may be decided in time, or not
A pending Supreme Court judgement in the case of Boockvar decides Pennsylvania
— Maajid \u0623\u0628\u0648 \u0639\u0645\u0651\u0627\u0631 (@MaajidNawaz) November 11, 2020
That was not a fraud case. The number of votes is secondary
It is about auditing a temporary mail ballot ringfence, imposed till a constitutional case against alleged judicial activism in PA is heard https://t.co/ek8gkDibKZ
The below is also worth noting:
It is important for election heads following this story to note that in Arizona, Pennsylvania, Minnesota and Georgia the electoral college is *not legally obliged* to vote as their state did. If disputes about election integrity continue, what these electors think, will matter
— Maajid \u0623\u0628\u0648 \u0639\u0645\u0651\u0627\u0631 (@MaajidNawaz) November 13, 2020
There is also the issue of ‘safe harbour’ being said to only be “procedural”. This view rests on a reading of the Bush v Gore Supreme Court ruling.
The US Supreme Court has ducked hearing the case of Trump, Texas & 17 other states, on a procedural issue
They did not comment on any recent newsworthy fraud allegations
Trump still refuses to concede, so what are his remaining long shot legal routes?
Read my THREAD:
....that, after careful study and consideration, think you got \u201cscrewed\u201d, something which will hurt them also. Many others likewise join the suit but, within a flash, it is thrown out and gone, without even looking at the many reasons it was brought. A Rigged Election, fight on!
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) December 12, 2020
1) There is still this dormant PA Republican Party vs Boockvar US Supreme Court case, but it may remain dormant, since the Court already indicated yesterday that it (understandably?) simply doesn’t want the serious heat on this one
A pending Supreme Court judgement in the case of Boockvar decides Pennsylvania
— Maajid \u0623\u0628\u0648 \u0639\u0645\u0651\u0627\u0631 (@MaajidNawaz) November 11, 2020
That was not a fraud case. The number of votes is secondary
It is about auditing a temporary mail ballot ringfence, imposed till a constitutional case against alleged judicial activism in PA is heard https://t.co/ek8gkDibKZ
2) Mon Dec 14th Electoral College need to cast their votes alongside their states’ choice (the crux of the dispute)
Matters escalate if:
i) the Electoral College is tied
ii) “faithless” electors don’t vote for their state candidate
Note: in the key swing states, this is legal
It is important for election heads following this story to note that in Arizona, Pennsylvania, Minnesota and Georgia the electoral college is *not legally obliged* to vote as their state did. If disputes about election integrity continue, what these electors think, will matter
— Maajid \u0623\u0628\u0648 \u0639\u0645\u0651\u0627\u0631 (@MaajidNawaz) November 13, 2020
OR:
iii) the House rejects some Electoral College votes, resulting in neither candidate receiving a majority.
3) If the above long shot occurs (aren’t we already in unprecedented times?) what happens next?
Under the 12th Amendment, when the House meets Jan 6th they can refuse to approve the Electoral College votes. They instead vote on a 1 vote per 1 state basis
Trump wins that vote.
More from Politics
Imagine, for a moment, the reaction of the UK Government, Brexiters, and the RW UK press if Juncker, Tusk, Macron or Merkel went on TV to say that Brexit was worth it to stop Freedom of Movement for UK citizens, and to stop Brits being able to come to the EU and jump the queue.
— Steve Bullock (@GuitarMoog) November 20, 2018
2/ Imagine if the EU said finally all those retired Brits in the EU27 could go home
3/ Imagine if the EU said finally all those Brits in the EU could stop driving down wages, taking jobs and stop sending benefits back to the UK
4/ Imagine if the EU said it was looking to use UK citizens as “bargaining chips” to get a better trade deal
5/ Imagine if the EU told UK citizens in the EU27 that they could no longer rely on established legal rights and they would have to apply for a new status which they have to pay for for less rights
This is shameful legislation, that does nothing to tackle the problems with UK elections.THREAD
Millions of people do not have photo ID. By forcing through mandatory voter-ID the government risk disenfranchising millions of legitimate voters. https://t.co/y0Upzof2FI
— Electoral Reform Society (@electoralreform) February 17, 2021
There is no evidence in-person voter fraud is a problem, and it wd be near-impossible to organise on an effective scale. Campaign finance violations, digital disinformation & manipulation of postal voting are bigger issues, but these are crimes of the powerful, not the powerless.
In a democracy, anything that makes it harder to vote - in particular, anything that disadvantages one group of voters - should face an extremely high bar. Compulsory voter ID takes a hammer to 3 million legitimate voters (disproportionately poor & BAME) to crack an imaginary nut
If the government is concerned about the purity of elections, it should reflect on its own conduct. In 2019 it circulated doctored news footage of an opponent, disguised its twitter feed as a fake fact-checking site, and ran adverts so dishonest that even Facebook took them down.
Britain's electoral law largely predates the internet. There is little serious regulation of online campaigning or the cash that pays for it. That allows unscrupulous campaigners to ignore much of the legal framework erected since the C19th to guard against electoral misconduct.