It was a foregone conclusion that Trump would lose the TX case, but why did he say “This is the big one?” 1/9

Because the TX case rested on the proposition that a national election can be nullified and “overturned” (a term Trump actually used in a tweet) on the grounds that it does not satisfy conditions determined by the incumbent president 2/9
and the states governed by that president’s political party--
(e..g., no votes by voters receiving mail-in ballots who do not request those ballots shall be deemed legitimate.) 3/9
This litigation was intended to nullify all the votes in all 50 states, and would have called for a new election. It challenged election procedures, not just election results. And it did not require any proof of fraud or undercounts or overcounts. 4/9
In other words, no national election can be legitimate that fails to reelect the incumbent president--in this case of course, Donald J. Trump, the Supreme Leader of the *real* America. 5/9
(Note that the litigation was entered *after* the election had been held and the GOP’s incumbent president had lost, so the litigation wasn’t even timely.)

This was an attempt to create a permanent authoritarian minority government. 6/9
In the 1930s, this sort of thing was called fascism in Europe. In today’s world it is called “managed democracy” or “authoritarian state elections”---exactly as in Putin’s Russia. 7/9
17 red states and 126 House Republicans signed on to it.

We are now faced with a treasonous war against majoritarian democracy, free elections, and the Constitutional rule of law in America by the Trumpian GOP. 8/9
As David Frum has predicted: “If conservatives become convinced that they can not win democratically, they will not abandon conservatism. They will reject democracy.” 9/9

More from Thomas Wood 🌊

More from Trump

Having a Twitter account is not a right.

If you incite violence on Twitter, the company can - and should - stop you. Good call.


Plans for “future armed protests” are spreading on Twitter and elsewhere, the company warned, “including a proposed secondary attack on the US Capitol and state capitol buildings on January 17, 2021”.

Yes, people who boosted their careers off of Trump - his sycophants, his kids & people like Haley, who helped him attack and undermine human rights around the world - are boo-hooing right now.

Always beware of powerful people pretending to be victims.

https://t.co/0A5D5eJFvL


But no one should react with glee. The president of the United States has been inciting violence, and Republican Party leaders, along with a willing, violent mob, have been aiding his attempts to overthrow the democratic process.

That's the real story here.

The dangers are real, and we've all seen them. That Twitter even had to contemplate banning any politician for inciting violence is awful. That they had to ban the sitting president for it is even worse.
OK, #Squidigation fans, I think we need to talk about the new Wisconsin suit Donald Trump filed - personally - in Federal Court last night. The suit is (as usual) meritless. But it's meritless in new and disturbing ways. This thread will be


Not, I hope, Seth Abramson long. But will see.

I apologize in advance to my wife, who would very much prefer I be billing time (today's a light day, though) and to my assistant, to whom I owe some administrative stuff this will likely keep me from 😃

First, some background. Trump's suit essentially tries to Federalize the Wisconsin Supreme Court complaint his campaign filed, which we discussed here.


If you haven't already, go read that thread. I'm not going to be re-doing the same analysis, and I'm not going to be cross-linking to that discussion as we go. (Sorry, I like you guys, and I see this as public service, but there are limits)

Also, @5DollarFeminist has a good stand-alone thread analyzing the new Federal complaint - it's worth reading as well, though some of the analysis will overlap.

You May Also Like

"I lied about my basic beliefs in order to keep a prestigious job. Now that it will be zero-cost to me, I have a few things to say."


We know that elite institutions like the one Flier was in (partial) charge of rely on irrelevant status markers like private school education, whiteness, legacy, and ability to charm an old white guy at an interview.

Harvard's discriminatory policies are becoming increasingly well known, across the political spectrum (see, e.g., the recent lawsuit on discrimination against East Asian applications.)

It's refreshing to hear a senior administrator admits to personally opposing policies that attempt to remedy these basic flaws. These are flaws that harm his institution's ability to do cutting-edge research and to serve the public.

Harvard is being eclipsed by institutions that have different ideas about how to run a 21st Century institution. Stanford, for one; the UC system; the "public Ivys".