The Alabama duo—Mo Brooks and Tommy Tuberville—is one I suspect the FBI will want to investigate. At all stages of the insurrection it seems Trump was working with two Alabama Republicans to ensure the insurrection and the opposition to Biden's certification worked hand-in-glove.

(MAJOR NOTE) The reason Manafort took over Trump's campaign in just 3 weeks despite being hired as a mere delegate counter is that ROGER STONE initiated a whisper campaign against Corey Lewandowski. That campaign started...days after Manafort returned from meeting with WikiLeaks.

2/ Stone and Manafort are longtime business partners; we'd expect Manafort to tell Stone what Assange told him, and for him to expect Stone to then pressure the campaign not only to hire him but quickly elevate him.

And who was Stone in touch with at the campaign? Trump himself.

3/ I bet you Manafort's late March emails are very interesting and that some of them are to/from his longtime business associate Roger Stone. And I bet Roger Stone's late March phone calls are very interesting and that some of them are to/from his longtime friend Donald Trump.

4/ At the end of March 2016, Trump suddenly convenes a NatSec meeting. At that meeting he directs his NatSec team to change the RNC platform in July to benefit Putin. Who later takes credit for that change?

Paul Manafort's business associate, Kremlin agent Konstantin Kilimnick.

5/ Why did Donald Trump suddenly convene a NatSec meeting 3 days after he finally hired Manafort? Why did he issue a pro-Kremlin directive at that meeting that Manafort's camp would later take credit for? What did Manafort tell Trump in the days leading up to that NatSec meeting?

(THREAD) Media has yet to do a deep dive on precisely what Trump *said* in his January 6 speech in DC—a speech now called an "incitement to insurrection," and the basis for an article of impeachment coming Monday. This thread unpacks the speech. I hope you'll read on and RETWEET.

1/ First, many don't realize that while the name of the *rally* was "Stop the Steal," Trump spoke flanked by banners that read "Save America March"—Save America being the PAC Trump has used since the election to scam voters out of more than $300 million for "election defense."

2/ It appears, therefore, that the link between Trump, his opposition to Biden's January 6 certification in Congress, and the insurrectionist march on the Capitol is one that comes, incredibly, with a paper trail—as it appears Trump *paid for* the seditious "Save America March."

3/ Seconds into his speech, Trump says, "These people are not going to take it any longer. They're not going to take it any longer...They came from all over our country. I just really want to see what they do." It's an astonishing admission he thinks something is going to happen.

4/ Trump then seems to catch himself, repeating the phrase "I just really want to see" but now adding "how they [media] cover it [the Save America March]." It's hard to know, therefore—perhaps deliberately—whether "what they do" means "what media does" or "what the marchers do."

Trump biographers—including me—and many Washington journalists are telling America that (a) Trump will never stop his coup attempt, (b) there's no bottom to what he's willing to do, therefore (c) there's no final "victory" over Trump we can celebrate.

I hope America will listen.

Donald Trump is a profoundly damaged mind. Everyone close to him who gets escape velocity from his madness says so. Friends. Employees. Family members. Trump's pathologies make him an ongoing danger to America that Biden's DOJ and intelligence officials *cannot afford* to ignore.

Too many journalists wrote pieces tonight calling the SCOTUS decision in the Texas lawsuit a "fatal blow" to Trump's coup. Listen—the coup was never going to succeed and Biden was always going to be sworn in. The question is what the country will look like when (and after) he is.

So you have a man on a mission to destroy this country who has it within his power to do so and you think his pathological scheme will cease because of a court decision? The "coup" concept will unfold over as long a period as Trump needs for him to get what he wants: total power.

Lara Trump will run for the Senate in North Carolina, they say. Ivanka Trump is mulling a Florida Senate run. Donald Trump Jr. is mulling the Montana governorship. The GOP may be the "Trump Party" by 2024.

This is an ongoing effort to build an autocratic dynasty and end America.

(🔐) PROOF EXCLUSIVE: Kimberly Guilfoyle’s Congressional Testimony About January 6 Was As Bizarre As Any the House January 6 Committee Received

This is the fourth entry in PROOF’s year-long JANUARY 6 FILES series.

I hope you’ll subscribe and RT. #J6Files

1/ This part of the PROOF analysis of Guilfoyle’s absolutely shocking January 6 testimony focuses on the last week of December 2020, when Trump was at Mar-a-Lago plotting his January 6 coup.

2/ At the time, Guilfoyle was living at Mar-a-Lago. As was Don Jr. Guilfoyle’s top aide, Caroline Wren, was the chief organizer of January 6 at the time. And the top donor Guilfoyle had personally developed for Trump (Julie Jenkins Fancelli) was the chief funder of January 6.

3/ From December 22 to December 31, 2020, Trump repeatedly met with co-conspirators at Mar-a-Lago, where (again) Guilfoyle was then living. Guilfoyle was at the time a Trump presidential adviser, a Trump campaign finance chair, a Trump cultist, and Trump’s future daughter-in-law.

4/ If you know just these basic facts, the claims Guilfoyle made UNDER OATH to Congress will absolutely blow your hair back.

1/9 A thread of testimony submitted by experts in psychiatry, paediatrics & cognitive neuroscience from around the world to the High Court in the Tavistock Puberty Blockers case.

2/9 One expert said it had been left to those coming to the end of their careers to speak out because the atmosphere of hostility & intimidation facing critical voices made it impossible for younger people to do so

3/9 A global expert on autism reported that girls with autism or anorexia were much more likely to say they wanted to become boys; all young people with difficult childhoods were more likely to say they wanted to transition

4/9 The same expert said autistic teenagers seize on the promise of online sites suggesting their life-long problems will be resolved by transition. Up to 26% of the trans population have Autistic Spectrum Disorder

5/9 A Swedish Psychiatrist reported research saying if left alone, dysphoria usually resolves & girls want to live as women, also that he had treated autism in girls for 45 years and rarely saw gender dysphoria before 2013

Counter-claim - when the defendant in a case “counter-sues” the plaintiff. So in this case JD is the plaintiff, AH is the defendant, she has counter-sued JD - in layman’s terms that’s her saying ‘you sued me, so I’m going to sue you!”. 🙄

AH’s counter-claim is actually rather poorly drafted (IMO!) and, to quote AH herself is “very dramatic”. It contains very little in the way of valid case law (see my video on caselaw) to support her claims and, to me, actually does read like someone throwing a tantrum!

Her counter-claim, when you cut through the crap, seeks: Declaratory Judgment, seeks to pursue a defamation claim against JD, and to pursue a claim against JD under the Virginia Computer Crimes Act (“Bot-Gate”)

So… Declaratory Judgment. This duplicates the Anti-SLAPP immunity that AH has included in her Defence so this part of the counter-claim DUPLICATES an argument she has already made. The Judge decided that Declaratory Judgment was not appropriate.

So the issue she sought to resolve with the DJ is already being dealt with in her Defence & will be dealt with at Trial… which is what the Judge means when he said to hear her Defence and her counter claim for declaratory judgment would be to hear the same issue twice.

New in the Industrial Law Journal "Belief vs. Action in Ladele, Ngole and Forstater" by Professor Robert Wintemute, Kings College London

https://t.co/jNYucKvKKa

Wintemute asks "Did the Employment Tribunal correctly distinguish the claimant’s belief from hypothetical (speculative, future) harmful action that might involve
discrimination against, or harassment of, a transgender co-worker or customer? "

He considers the case of Ladele - a registrar whose religious belief meant she would not conduct same sex weddings - her belief could not be accommodated, because she had chosen to act on it in a way that caused harm to others.

And Ngole, a student social worker who won his case " I never advocated any hate...towards people who are in same sex relationships. ... I never stated that people in same sex relationships should be treated differently.."

Wintemute notes "Ms Forstater was not dismissed because of her treatment of any transgender person, such as a co-worker or a customer of her employer..but because of her co-workers’ intolerance of her unfashionable (to them) belief that, in some situations, sex matters"

In court on the Aloha Coffee case, in which owner has refused to abide by mask rules, distancing rules. He’s telling the judge his rights are being violated and so is the Constitution.

“I have the right, the constitutional right, and a constitutional right can’t be converted to a crime. I do not consent to these hearings. I’m not going to be steamrolled.” Says he’s going to file a criminal case against the judge and DA.

He’s going to file, he says, with everyone from local DA and sheriff and the US Attorney. Judge Lydia Villarreal is being remarkably patient with him.

The point of today’s hearing is to decide whether a restraining order will become a preliminary injunction. He’s been operating without a health certificate since it was pulled in December.

“There’s no evidence of any wrongdoing on my part,” he says. Did I mention the part about the judge being patient? She’s being waaaay patient with him. He tried to disqualify her but doesn’t have an attorney and doesn’t know how to do it lawfully.

A necessary clarification needs to be made with regards to securities laws because I’ve been seeing a theory lately not based on law but based on false presumptions. Before I do so, I want to note that I DO NOT think that XRP is a security (before I get “FUD” responses). 1/

Here it goes: There has been a theory that the SEC should only be pursuing the sales of XRP by Ripple, and once it exchanges hands it is no longer a security. Basically the theory is that the XRP the common investor holds (who bought off an exchange) is not a security because 2/

there is no privity with Ripple. Stated differently, the assumption is the SEC should categorize XRP into two pots: 1) XRP sold by Ripple and 2) all other XRP . The theory continues that a difference should be made and the SEC should clarify that it is only alleging the 3/

transactions made by Ripple to be transactions of securities. This theory is a fallacy. I’ve seen this theory argued by comparing XRP to a stock and noting the differences. It is important to note that this type of comparison cannot apply. 4/

The SEC is not alleging that XRP is a stock, but rather an “investment contract”. An Investment Contract is (1) an investment of money (2) in a common enterprise (3) with the expectation of profit (4) derived solely from the efforts of others. 5/