(TRUE STORY) In the weeks before the 2020 election, ex-Overstock CEO Patrick Byrne was desperately trying to get to me through an intermediary to share info about the coming election he claimed was critical.

I ignored his overtures.

Donald Trump invited him to the Oval Office.

I don't care one way or another about the Elizabeth Warren DNA kerfuffle; it's silliness bred of Trump's lunacy, not a serious political matter.

But—*but*—the blowback on Warren is useful as a reminder that facts, science, and really truth of any kind is now anathema to the GOP.

2/ If you're online trying to convince a Trumpist of *anything*—I mean *anything*—stop right now.

The Trumpists' reaction to Warren's DNA test—a cacophony of fact-free insanity about race and DNA and even just *the bare facts of what happened*—tells you you're wasting your time.

3/ I don't see the point in baiting Trumpists, or insulting them, or calling attention to their madness on a daily basis. These people are fundamentally unserious about truth, discourse, and anything resembling a community of ideas. So:

1) Ignore them—completely.
2) Vote—always.

4/ I don't always live up to that standard, but I'm *trying*. I'm *trying* to ignore as beneath dialogic significance those who say "most people" have Native American ancestry, or who can't read basic studies to understand Warren's DNA test, or who say Trump never made a bet, &c.

5/ Trump wants to call Warren "Pocahontas" because he's a racist, wants to appeal to racists, and his cult-like following so ignores *everything bad he does* that they think that, had she lied—she didn't—*this* (this!) would be worse than anything Trump has done.

*Process that*.

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.

(PS) Mo Brooks was the first Republican to say he'd challenge Biden's certification; was at Trump's rally talking about "kicking ass"; was allegedly conspiring with Akbar. His Alabama GOP delegation peer, Tuberville, was Trump's Senate man, contacted by Giuliani mid-insurrection.

(PS2) A lot of people will be asking about conversations that may have occurred between/amongst Trump, Giuliani, Brooks, Biggs, Gosar, Tuberville, and Akbar as to how the insurrection would be timed and how it would dovetail with Brooks'/Tuberville's actions inside the Capitol.

(PS3) We now know both Trump and Giuliani contacted Tuberville as the insurrection was happening to get him to artificially elongate his objections to Biden's win. These exhortations would've had the effect—and appear to have been intended to—give the insurrectionists more time.

(PS4) I say "appear to have been intended to" because we now have numerous major-media reports establishing that Trump was "excited," "pleased," and "enthusiastic" as the insurrection unfolded. This was the same period of time he tried to *elongate* GOP objections to Biden's win.

(THREAD) Pre-election Russia collusion may take down Trump. It's equally possible the Trumps' pre- and post-election collusion with Saudi Arabia, the UAE, and Israel will do it—a course of collusion also connected to the Kremlin. I explain here. I hope you'll read on and retweet.

1/ I must stress how unbelievably complex the "Grand Bargain" theory of the Trump-Russia case is—a different thing from saying it's not substantiated. It's substantiated in *almost every single particular*—it just *also* happens to be very confusing. Not byzantine—just confusing.

2/ The basics: Saudi Arabia, Israel, and the UAE all view Iran as their chief regional enemy. Iran is propped up by Russia. Therefore the Saudis, Israelis, and Emiratis all need a US government willing to find a way to get the Kremlin to *stop* supporting Iran in the Middle East.

3/ The best way to get Russia to stop supporting Iran—or reduce support—was/is to drop all sanctions on Russia over its 2014 annexation of Crimea, as that'd be worth *trillions* to the Kremlin over the next decade. Everyone knew that Clinton wouldn't do this—and that Trump would.

4/ Per the NYT, on August 3, 2016, Donald Trump Jr. met secretly at Trump Tower with a Saudi and Emirati emissary, George Nader, as well as an Israeli intelligence expert, Joel Zamel, with *significant* ties to both Israeli intelligence *and* Russian oligarchs allied with Putin.

TRUMP'S COUP TIMELINE

* This thread will use military time and EST time zone for any times provided.

November 7, 2020 - The press calls the 2020 presidential election for now President-elect Joe Biden, 4 days after the election.

November 9, 2020

After meeting with Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell and in violation of standing Department of Justice policy not to interfere in elections, US Attorney General Bill Barr authorizes federal prosecutors to investigate claims of electoral fraud.

Richard Pilger, the head of the DoJ’s Election Crimes Branch, resigns in response to Barr’s memo.

Trump fires Secretary of Defense Mark Esper. In response, Esper says, “Who’s going to come in behind me? It’s going to be a real ‘yes man.’ And then God help us.”

Trump immediately names Christopher Miller Acting Secretary of Defense.

Trump follows Esper’s firing with firing the Undersecretary of Defense for Policy, the Undersecretary of Defense for Intelligence, and the Chief of Staff to the Secretary of Defense, constituting a “near total decapitation of civilian leadership” at the Pentagon.

1. Short thread - on the various claims we're seeing from Republican politicians over the last few days that the Democratic push for accountability is "divisive." Damn right it's divisive - that is what it has to be.

2. It is intended to enforce a clear division between those who accept and are committed to democracy and those who are willing to turn to violence when the vote doesn't turn out the way that they want it to.

3. One of the basic implications of Adam Przeworski's theoretic work is that democracy is made out of mutually reinforcing expectations, and those expectations are fragile. If some actors think they would be better off defecting from the democratic bargain, they will.

4. In other words: democracy and armed factionalism are far closer than we think, or we would like them to be. This means that it is incredibly important to police the boundaries between them. Allowing some to turn to violence can lead to expectation collapse and cascading ruin.

5. When we allow the divisions to become blurred, that means that we are running the perpetual risk of things getting fucked up. If a major faction turns to violence, and no-one responds, things can get really fucked up really, really fast.

We promised people that if we won the Senate, we would send out $2,000 survival checks. They delivered us to victory—and now we MUST deliver.

“Targeting” checks to a smaller group fails to do that. People need help like never before, and we must put money in their pockets.

“Targeting” checks isn’t just bad for people, it’s bad policy too! It’s not humane, it's not smart, it’s not effective, and it’s not even fiscally responsible. Not to mention that it doesn't meet the scale of this crisis.

Help me spread the word about 4 obvious reasons why:

1⃣The survival checks often use 2019 tax data to measure someone’s income.

Millions lost their jobs in 2020 due to COVID—that’s the whole point of this relief!—and therefore their income from 1 or 2 years ago is no longer accurate. They need help now and we must provide it.

Even if someone isn’t one of the nearly 1 million additional people losing their job EVERY single week, they likely lost hours and therefore had their overall income significantly reduced.

By “targeting,” we cut out people who are desperately in need of help.

2⃣The data from people who filed for unemployment shows that more than 20% of those earning between $50k and $70k were still food insecure.

That's up 16% from 2019—and it's why food banks have such long lines. We need to put money in their pockets so they can feed their family.

The initiatives of Congress are to come in two areas. One within the party and the other with other parties.
First Congress has to Improve its communication with people, cadres, leaders and supporters.
Rahul is mainly shouldering this responsibility. But why not other leaders.
/1

It may be argued that some leaders are doing it within their areas. What about other areas, other leaders?
There will be many contenders for posts, maybe even for President’s if given a chance.
Why not leaders volunteer to propagate views, counter the Modi regime on the field?
/2

Some leaders give out statements in media, write their views on social media. Are they enough? Are they doing justice to their potential?
Even during elections, they limit themselves to their constituencies/ state.
Why should they not extend it beyond & even between elections?
/3

The statements of Congress leaders with few exceptions are bland, insipid, prosaic, not interesting and attracting enough to percolate to the people.
How many of their messages reached the people?
Can they not make it more attractive or find other ways to reach the masses?
/4

Some may say there are limitations of age, barriers of territory, egos, invitations, interference.
Most of them are artificial, self-imposed and can be sorted out.
These leaders do not devote themselves to the masses.
If Rahul does it, expected to do it why not others?
/5