THREAD: Pence never mattered
1. Recall: None of the authorities or courts in disputed swing-states were interested in looking at the merits of the fraud allegations.
Recall: The swing-states rushed to certify the vote count, despite active court cases and mountains of evidence.
More from Spies Like Us
THREAD: Enemy Combatants
1. There is a preponderance of evidence that the C C P were involved influencing the outcome of the US 2020 election. The details are available to those who wish to look.
I cannot be convinced that the Military didn’t watch all of this, in real time.
2. I cannot be convinced that DNI Ratcliffe isn’t investigating this matter exactly as per the 2018 Executive Order on Foreign Interference in an election.
https://t.co/zsANAInmck
I cannot be convinced that Biden will ever get a security clearance, even as a visitor to the WH.
3. The eyes of the world are now on the US Military and the Supreme Court (SC).
People are talking of war, cyber-terr0rism, treas0n, Chynese Military troops in Canada and US Naval ships off the coast lines.
Remain calm.
A counter-insurgency must involve the nation's citizens.
4. The importance of US Military law and the role of the SC reminded of that intriguing (almost scripted) interview between Sen. Lindsay Graham and SC Judge Brett Kavanaugh during his confirmation hearing.
[Link at end of thread].
5. Firstly, Graham invoked the heartstrings by reminding everyone of the 9/11 tragedy AND then got Kavanaugh to confirm that the US was still legally at war, due the Authorization for Use of Military Force resolution of
1. There is a preponderance of evidence that the C C P were involved influencing the outcome of the US 2020 election. The details are available to those who wish to look.
I cannot be convinced that the Military didn’t watch all of this, in real time.
2. I cannot be convinced that DNI Ratcliffe isn’t investigating this matter exactly as per the 2018 Executive Order on Foreign Interference in an election.
https://t.co/zsANAInmck
I cannot be convinced that Biden will ever get a security clearance, even as a visitor to the WH.
3. The eyes of the world are now on the US Military and the Supreme Court (SC).
People are talking of war, cyber-terr0rism, treas0n, Chynese Military troops in Canada and US Naval ships off the coast lines.
Remain calm.
A counter-insurgency must involve the nation's citizens.
4. The importance of US Military law and the role of the SC reminded of that intriguing (almost scripted) interview between Sen. Lindsay Graham and SC Judge Brett Kavanaugh during his confirmation hearing.
[Link at end of thread].
5. Firstly, Graham invoked the heartstrings by reminding everyone of the 9/11 tragedy AND then got Kavanaugh to confirm that the US was still legally at war, due the Authorization for Use of Military Force resolution of
More from Society
Two things can be true at once:
1. There is an issue with hostility some academics have faced on some issues
2. Another academic who himself uses threats of legal action to bully colleagues into silence is not a good faith champion of the free speech cause
I have kept quiet about Matthew's recent outpourings on here but as my estwhile co-author has now seen fit to portray me as an enabler of oppression I think I have a right to reply. So I will.
I consider Matthew to be a colleague and a friend, and we had a longstanding agreement not to engage in disputes on twitter. I disagree with much in the article @UOzkirimli wrote on his research in @openDemocracy but I strongly support his right to express such critical views
I therefore find it outrageous that Matthew saw fit to bully @openDemocracy with legal threats, seeking it seems to stifle criticism of his own work. Such behaviour is simply wrong, and completely inconsistent with an academic commitment to free speech.
I am not embroiling myself in the various other cases Matt lists because, unlike him, I think attention to the detail matters and I don't have time to research each of these cases in detail.
1. There is an issue with hostility some academics have faced on some issues
2. Another academic who himself uses threats of legal action to bully colleagues into silence is not a good faith champion of the free speech cause
How about Selina Todd, Kathleen Stock, Jo Phoenix, Rachel Ara, Sarah Honeychurch, Michele Moore, Nina Power, Joanna Williams, Jenny Murray, Julia Gasper ...
— Matt Goodwin (@GoodwinMJ) February 17, 2021
Or is it only Eric you pop at?
Are they all making it up too Rob?
Are they "beyond parody"? https://t.co/drQssTD0OL
I have kept quiet about Matthew's recent outpourings on here but as my estwhile co-author has now seen fit to portray me as an enabler of oppression I think I have a right to reply. So I will.
I consider Matthew to be a colleague and a friend, and we had a longstanding agreement not to engage in disputes on twitter. I disagree with much in the article @UOzkirimli wrote on his research in @openDemocracy but I strongly support his right to express such critical views
I therefore find it outrageous that Matthew saw fit to bully @openDemocracy with legal threats, seeking it seems to stifle criticism of his own work. Such behaviour is simply wrong, and completely inconsistent with an academic commitment to free speech.
I am not embroiling myself in the various other cases Matt lists because, unlike him, I think attention to the detail matters and I don't have time to research each of these cases in detail.