THREAD: My thoughts on the decision not to call witnesses. Please correct me if I'm wrong. This take is based on what I think I know, and there's much I don't know, but I do not understand why the dems didn't depose Rep. Beutler. Let's talk about the objections: 1/

First, many are saying it would drag this thing out and prevent Biden's agenda from moving forward. I don't see how that's possible. The senate had the votes to depose Rep. Beutler. We saw that with the 55-45 vote to allow witnesses. GOP can't filibuster that 2/
It would have taken probably a week to depose her and introduce her testimony into the senate record. The senate is scheduled to be in recess this week. The only thing a deposition of Beutler would have done is stopped the senate's vacation. 3/
Since everything would have been done in roughly a week, and the senate was scheduled for a week-long vacation, the deposition of Beutler wouldn't have delayed any of Biden's agenda. 4/
Next, many are saying Mitch threatened to filibuster Biden's agenda. That's also an empty threat. Cabinet confirmations require only a simple majority vote, and the Covid relief package is going through the budget reconciliation process so it's not subject to filibuster 5/
Many say Mitch threatened to filibuster all legislation NOT eligible for budget reconciliation such as the John Lewis Voting Rights Act. Mitch was already going to filibuster those, AND, senate dems can change the budget reconciliation rules to get them passed without the GOP 6/
Some say the dems have to allow the republicans to call witnesses, too. That's not true. If the dems wanted to depose ONLY Beutler, they could have voted with a simple majority to do so. 7/
The ONLY reason I can think the dems decided not to depose Beutler was if they didn't have the simple majority votes to ONLY depose Beutler. Can anyone think of any other reason NOT to depose only Beutler? 8/
You may say "well, it wouldn't change the GOP minds." That's true, but this has NEVER been about them, it's about getting the truth out to the public so THEY can judge republicans who vote to acquit. It's well established that a witness is better than a document. 9/
So, there may be something we aren't aware of, or there may be something I simply don't know, but with the available information, I can't for the life of me figure out why the dems wouldn't have deposed Beutler in this case. END
UPDATE: it is now being floated that calling witnesses could have in some way interfered with criminal prosecutions. More to come.

More from Mueller, She Wrote

THREAD: Okay. I'm about to get SUPER space beans tin foil hat on you, so stop reading if you're not into that. Based on what we're learning from public reporting, the pentagon curtailed the response to the trump coup. 1/

We also know from video and public reporting that there were two groups that stormed the capitol. 1) weird-ass bystanders and 2) possibly armed ex-military members with tactical gear and flex cuffs 2/


We also know there was a failed coup attempt in Venezuela orchestrated by Giuliani and former members of Blackwater, an Erik Prince joint. 3/

We also know that Giuliani met with Brian Benczkowski and Bill Barr to lobby for for help to go easy on his Venezuelan pal. Benczkowski is a former Alfa Bank rep. 4/

Further, we know that Erik Prince is the brother of Betsy DeVos (who JUST resigned) and the former head of Blackwater. We also know that the day before the insurrection, a memo was sent out to knee-cap the federal police in DC. 5/

More from For later read

1. The death of Silicon Valley, a thread

How did Silicon Valley die? It was killed by the internet. I will explain.

Yesterday, my friend IRL asked me "Where are good old days when techies were


2. In the "good old days" Silicon Valley was about understanding technology. Silicon, to be precise. These were people who had to understand quantum mechanics, who had to build the near-miraculous devices that we now take for granted, and they had to work

3. Now, I love libertarians, and I share much of their political philosophy. But you have to be socially naive to believe that it has a chance in a real society. In those days, Silicon Valley was not a real society. It was populated by people who understood quantum mechanics

4. Then came the microcomputer revolution. It was created by people who understood how to build computers. One borderline case was Steve Jobs. People claimed that Jobs was surrounded by a "reality distortion field" - that's how good he was at understanding people, not things

5. Still, the heroes of Silicon Valley were the engineers. The people who knew how to build things. Steve Jobs, for all his understanding of people, also had quite a good understanding of technology. He had a libertarian vibe, and so did Silicon Valley

You May Also Like

First update to https://t.co/lDdqjtKTZL since the challenge ended – Medium links!! Go add your Medium profile now 👀📝 (thanks @diannamallen for the suggestion 😁)


Just added Telegram links to
https://t.co/lDdqjtKTZL too! Now you can provide a nice easy way for people to message you :)


Less than 1 hour since I started adding stuff to https://t.co/lDdqjtKTZL again, and profile pages are now responsive!!! 🥳 Check it out -> https://t.co/fVkEL4fu0L


Accounts page is now also responsive!! 📱✨


💪 I managed to make the whole site responsive in about an hour. On my roadmap I had it down as 4-5 hours!!! 🤘🤠🤘
"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".