7 days 30 days All time Recent Popular
Situation Update, Jan 2nd – The Big Reveal … How Trump will change history on January 6th

Today’s Situation Update for January 2nd covers the “big reveal” that President Trump has announced for January 6th. On this day, Trump’s team will present information to Congress before


1.they vote on the contested slates of electors from the swing states where massive election fraud occurred.
What will this “big reveal” consist of? We know it’s something that has never been presented previously in a court case, nor to the public. The possibilities are endless:

2. Jeffrey Epstein bombshells? Declassified intelligence on China’s financial payments to the Biden crime family? Smoking gun proof that Dominion machines rigged the election? There are even rumors that two intelligence agencies for other nations have proof of election fraud and

3.are handing it over to Trump. Whatever gets presented, Trump believes it will change the outcome of the vote on Jan 6th. That means it would have to be truly historic, because Democrats aren’t going to vote for Trump in a contested election unless they are absolutely forced to.

4.We’ve even speculated that some members of Congress might resign on the spot after seeing this evidence. Others might face arrest for their complicity in the crimes that have been committed against America.

🇺🇸 Here’s what’s covered in today’s Situation Update highlights:
It turns out to be bad idea for people who have large public microphones to act as if they're venting to their 120 Facebook friends.


And oh, look, this is a perfect segue to a tweetstorm about my latest column!

So I've been saying Trump is dangerous basically since the beginning. Not because I thought he was going to cancel elections and become a dictator; I didn't think he had the competence, or American institutions the vulnerability, for that.

I thought he was dangerous because he said stuff no politician could say, and that was corrosive to American democracy in all sorts of ways. What happened on Wednesday doesn't need to itself be a coup in order to pose a mortal long-term danger to the Republic.

Also I didn't want the impulsive, belligerent narcissist to have access to nuclear launch codes, but that's a discussion for another time.
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.
This is mostly right but strikes me as it needing said that I don't think the left or the intelligentsia have the slightest idea how low institutional trust in anything coming from a left mouthpiece is now. Except in-network, the best heuristic is "the opposite of what they said"


If you look at the situation from a predictive models perspective instead of the more rigorous and appropriate (under normal circumstances) "prove your case or gtfo" perspective, trusting the opposite of whatever the left side says has an AMAZING track record, as we know it.

Literally, the best heuristic most people have right now, in terms of how often it gets things right versus *completely* wrong, is "whatever CNN, the NYT, public health officials, and the Democrats said... yeah, the opposite." That is, they're wrong WAY outside of statistics.

They're also not just wrong. They're *completely* wrong, backwards, often transparently covering something up that they don't want known or refuse to believe. This isn't just a legitimation crisis because there's a heuristic: whatever the official left narrative is, is wrong.

There are a few reasons why such a heuristic would be more predictive than not. One of those is conspiracy, and another is mass hysteria with ideological capture. We know at least one of those is happening and have rather strong evidence both are. That makes conspiracy reasonable