I haven't been harping on it because it at least contributes to taking it seriously, but this is part of why I shudder every time they call the halls of Congress "sacred" and talk about them being "desecrated".

A few people are suggesting that the impeachment delay is necessary and unavoidable because of the time it takes to whip votes (make sure that the votes are there and the shakier edges of the coalition are firmed up).

This may well be true.

But as ever, messaging matters.

So, I got an email recently from someone thanking me for having pointed out that it's okay to PayPal a dollar, because that's usually what they have and they'd always thought of pledging/tipping a dollar on social media as rude, like tipping a waiter a penny.

It really isn't.

Some people have the impression that with transaction fees a dollar isn't "worth it", and might even effectively cost the person who receives it money. Also not the case.

The difference between a digital performance or service, like I provide on Twitter dot com, and the labor done by a waiter or bartender or driver, is that they're doing the job each time for each and every person who receives it. I do the same job for everybody who receives it.

It's worth it for me in the sense of being a sustainable way to spend my time if the money I bring in, in aggregate, is enough make it worth it. That works out the same if it's one generous patron dropping a ton of money at once or a crowd of appreciative audience members with $1

And in fact, in terms of long-term sustainability and independence, it's better to have lots of small patronage than a few high rollers.

People whose response to calls for raising the minimum wage is "But minimum wage jobs aren't meant to be life-long careers!"

Even if you were right, what's that got to do with it? You've still got to live while you have one.

Again, at such a key moment in UK and at such high political levels, evidence of deep misunderstanding of EU: The PM is under pressure in some quarters to delay #Brexit vote to allow her first to “improve” deal in Brussels BUT EU is determined not to budge at this stage

2) All EU leaders watching tomorrow’s vote. Of course they want to avoid a no deal #Brexit BUT they feel the deal - so painfully negotiated between EU and UK - is too fresh to re-open. Clarifications, yes but fundamental renegotiations, no.

3) The EU’s international reputation as a tough deal-maker is at stake here too. If Brussels now suddenly “gives in” to U.K. on EU red lines (eg backstop) then that would weaken the EU’s reputation in future trade negotiations with other non EU countries

4) Also on backstop the EU is unlikely to cave in to favour a relationship with a leaving member state (UK) against the explicit wishes and ignoring the deep concerns of a continuing member: Ireland.

5) Both the EU and the PM signed up to a guarantee to protect the border between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland. If either the U.K. or EU can leave the backstop unilaterally then this clearly is no longer a guarantee.

So I've been reporting a story about how you'd fix the impeachment process. It doesn't work for removal, as currently designed. Impeachment was built for a political system without parties. It fails in a system with polarized parties.

The one time it functioned as intended, confusingly, was the time it didn't happen: Richard Nixon wasn't impeached! But the impeachment process, which came at the low ebb of party polarization in American history, convinced his party to force him to resign.

Would Republicans force Nixon to resign today?

Oh, you're cute. Thank you. I needed that.

The problem of impeachment is pretty simple: Presidents are leaders of parties. Parties are tied to the political fortunes of presidents. You're asking a party to basically wreck its immediate political future for the good of the system.

This doesn't just have the effect of making impeachment ineffective as a remedy. It's worse than that. It makes impeachment dangerous to the president's party, and gives them a reason to defend him and either normalize or minimize his crimes. As we are seeing right now.

IMP 🚨 INVESTIGATION

India's lockdown was called world's largest, strictest etc. @ BBC, we wanted to know how the govt planned it.

So, what're we looking at?

Govt docs that reveal every department/agency who was consulted by PM Modi before imposing #lockdown.

#Thread

How did we access the docs? Well, for months my colleague Arjun Parmar and I filed RTI applications with the relevant govt depts - State & Centre. Hundreds in fact. We then filed appeals, then filed second appeals..phew!

Background - this day last year, India had less than 600 cases and nine deaths. Some European & Latin American nations (with way higher numbers) had imposed lockdowns.

China, with thousands of deaths and cases by March 2020, never imposed a national lockdown.

One more thing - India started monitoring and preparing it's response to coronavirus from January 8, 2020. It was repeatedly mentioned that none other than PM was personally leading the effort.

Let's start with what we've got now.

India's lockdown was imposed by an @ndmaindia order. Who heads NDMA? Prime Minister.

So we asked NDMA - who all were consulted before lockdown? Also, how many NDMA meetings did the PM attend? Their response.

NIL to both. Yes, NIL.