The “ebb and flow” analogy of the 2020 Presidential election. On election night we all knew the red title wave came in (flow). In that moment, we felt all the hard work, prayers and faith paid off. Only to be disappointed as the wave went out (ebb).

A lot of people don't understand that Trump & his incoming team didn't face a normal transition period, like it was over a in a matter of a few weeks or months.

The DOJ transition period JUST ENDED when Sessions left. Almost 2 exact years to get it there.

Pompeo at the CIA took over a year before he was done and ready to shift over to the State Department.

All kinds of stuff has been going on behind the scenes nobody leaks or talks about.

We only had the barest mention of the fact the Clinton Email investigation restarted

Nobody leaked in a year that Huber was deep diving into the Clinton Foundation.
Keep that in mind as all the usual suspects continue to INSIST nothing is happening/going to happen.

NEW: @GenFlynn interview w/ @newsmax [on his view of the 2020 Election and what should happen next] "First of all, @realDonaldTrump won on the 3rd of November. The things that he needs to do right now [are]: appoint a Special Counsel, immediately; seize all of these Dominion and

2/ other voting machines that we have across the country; he needs to go ahead and prioritize by state, and probably by county [Fulton County, Maricopa County, as an example]. Exactly what they did up in Antrim County, MI, and what they discovered. I think if he looks

3/ at a random sampling of some of these counties, he's going to find exactly the same problem. These machines are clearly, CLEARLY, there is a foreign influence that is tied to this system, and it goes back to China. It likely goes to Russia. Likely goes to Iran. We know that

4/ Venezuela has participated in the development of these machines. There's been problems all over the country with them. Not only with Dominion, but with this Smartmatic software. He's got a couple of options that he can take, and he needs to take them right now.

5/ The President could, immediately, on his order, seize every single one of these machines around country, on his order. He could also order, within the swing-states [if he wanted to], he could take military capabilities and he could place them in those states & basically re-run

1. @JonathanTurley
Trump has only been out of office and, therefore, no longer (purportedly) immunized from criminal prosecution for ~1 month. Also, because of R delay, Garland is still awaiting confirmation. Once Garland is AG, expect a thorough



2. investigation of Trump for inciting insurrection in violation of 18 U.S.C. 2383, together with other federal crimes. Once that investigation is completed, based on the information that is currently public, there is a good chance that Trump will be prosecuted for violating

3. 18 U.S.C. 2383, together with other federal crimes. Not absolutely guaranteed. But a very good chance. The only element of inciting insurrection that is open to credible dispute is Trump’s intent. Is there sufficient evidence that he intended his speech to incite imminent

4. lawlessness? As you know (or should know), criminal intent is invariably established by circumstantial evidence. That means prosecutors must analyze everything Trump did and said (and didn't do or say) before, during and after his incendiary speech.

5. That investigation takes time. Sometimes a lot of time to empanel a grand jury and begin issuing subpoenas and seeking warrants. The fact that Trump's previous crimes, including the 10 felonies outlined in Vol. II of Mueller's report, haven't been prosecuted is irrelevant.

Here's a quick thread on the chronology leading up to today's vote in the Scottish Parliament on whether ministers should go to court to investigate the finances of Donald Trump's Scottish resorts via a legal mechanism known as an Unexplained Wealth Order.👇

Intrigue surrounding the source of Trump's finances here is by no means new. An editorial in @TheScotsman questioned where the money was coming from back in *2008*. But the UWO issue came to prominence last Feb during exchanges in the Scottish Parliament.

The issue returned to parliament last November, when First Minister Nicola Sturgeon said any consideration or application for an UWO were "properly matters for the Crown Office, not for the Scottish ministers."

This argument went against the explicit definition of who is able to apply for a UWO, as set out in the Criminal Finances Act 2017 / Proceeds of Crime Act 2002, which states that "the Court of Session may, on an application made by the Scottish ministers, make an UWO"

The leading advocate, Aidan O'Neill QC, has also said Scottish ministers alone are responsible for decisions around UWOs, and that transferring responsibility to the Crown Office or Lord Advocate "does not and can not" change its legal responsibilities.