Hearing coming up at the top of the hour on the USPS lawsuits over possible delayed delivery of mail-in ballots.

Yesterday, Judge Sullivan indicated Postmaster DeJoy was not "off the hook" for failing to follow an Election Day order to sweep facilities for misplaced ballots.

Note that court staff have set up two more public lines after hundreds of people dialed in yesterday:
We also got a dump of data from USPS in the last hour or so on:

Extra and late trips
On-time delivery percentages
Number of inbound/outbound ballots processed

(all stats the agency has been sharing/updating daily over the last week)
DOJ has brought with today several USPS processing facility managers, per Sullivan's request yesterday, including from Philly, Central Penn, Greensboro and the Mid Carolinas.
Vote Forward attorney says the data USPS filed this morning suggests that 150K ballots were delivered yesterday, including 604 ballots in Atlanta and 7K in Pennsylvania.
Plaintiff attorney says in Atlanta 22.5% of ballots (around 136) were not processed on time, and in Penn 20% (around 1,400).

That means voters dropped the ballots in mail/ballot boxes and at post offices by Sat/Sun and they weren't delivered until Wed, 1 day after USPS planned.
Parties now discussing small changes to the following orders that Sullivan is ready to issue after the hearing:
DOJ attorney asking if the court can dismiss the USPS managers so they can get back to work.

Sullivan tells them before they leave he wants to say how much he appreciates and admires their work.
Nothing stops the post office, Sullivan said, adding he wanted to give the postwoman a big hug today and that his dog Zoey didn't even bark at her this morning.
Sullivan in a much better mood than yesterday, telling the parties "hope springs eternal."

He also just called out the plaintiffs for missing the midnight deadline on their proposed order -- then laughed and said "just kidding."
New tranche of records hit the docket, over 100 pages of "clean sweep" search checklists filled out by USPS plant managers:
Plaintiff attorney running through data USPS provided last night (not on the public docket) on ballot processing.
Asked by NAACP what can be done to identify misplaced ballots that need to be delivered by today/tomorrow, Kevin Bray, USPS's head of 2020 election mail operations, said:

"The clean sweeps that we’re doing and have been doing would identify what we’re capturing and delivering."

More from For later read

Wow, Morgan McSweeney again, Rachel Riley, SFFN, Center for Countering Digital Hate, Imran Ahmed, JLM, BoD, Angela Eagle, Tracy-Ann Oberman, Lisa Nandy, Steve Reed, Jon Cruddas, Trevor Chinn, Martin Taylor, Lord Ian Austin and Mark Lewis. #LabourLeaks #StarmerOut 24 tweet🧵

Morgan McSweeney, Keir Starmer’s chief of staff, launched the organisation that now runs SFFN.
The CEO Imran Ahmed worked closely with a number of Labour figures involved in the campaign to remove Jeremy as leader.

Rachel Riley is listed as patron.
https://t.co/nGY5QrwBD0


SFFN claims that it has been “a project of the Center For Countering Digital Hate” since 4 May 2020. The relationship between the two organisations, however, appears to date back far longer. And crucially, CCDH is linked to a number of figures on the Labour right. #LabourLeaks

Center for Countering Digital Hate registered at Companies House on 19 Oct 2018, the organisation’s only director was Morgan McSweeney – Labour leader Keir Starmer’s chief of staff. McSweeney was also the campaign manager for Liz Kendall’s leadership bid. #LabourLeaks #StarmerOut

Sir Keir - along with his chief of staff, Morgan McSweeney - held his first meeting with the Jewish Labour Movement (JLM). Deliberately used the “anti-Semitism” crisis as a pretext to vilify and then expel a leading pro-Corbyn activist in Brighton and Hove
There is some valuable analysis in this report, but on the defense front this report is deeply flawed. There are other sections of value in report but, candidly, I don't think it helps us think through critical question of Taiwan defense issues in clear & well-grounded way. 1/


Normally as it might seem churlish to be so critical, but @cfr is so high-profile & the co-authors so distinguished I think it’s key to be clear. If not, people - including in Beijing - could get the wrong idea & this report could do real harm if influential on defense issues. 2/

BLUF: The defense discussion in this report does not engage at the depth needed to add to this critical debate. Accordingly conclusions in report are ill-founded - & in key parts harmful/misleading, esp that US shldnt be prepared defend Taiwan directly (alongside own efforts). 3/

The root of the problem is that report doesn't engage w the real debate on TWN defense issues or, frankly, the facts as knowable in public. Perhaps the most direct proof of this: The citations. There is nothing in the citations to @DeptofDefense China Military Power Report...4/

Nor to vast majority of leading informed sources on this like Ochmanek, the @RANDCorporation Scorecard, @CNAS, etc. This is esp salient b/c co-authors by their own admission have v little insight into contemporary military issues. & both last served in govt in Bush 43. 5/

You May Also Like

Still wondering about this 🤔


save as q
“We don’t negotiate salaries” is a negotiation tactic.

Always. No, your company is not an exception.

A tactic I don’t appreciate at all because of how unfairly it penalizes low-leverage, junior employees, and those loyal enough not to question it, but that’s negotiation for you after all. Weaponized information asymmetry.

Listen to Aditya


And by the way, you should never be worried that an offer would be withdrawn if you politely negotiate.

I have seen this happen *extremely* rarely, mostly to women, and anyway is a giant red flag. It suggests you probably didn’t want to work there.

You wish there was no negotiating so it would all be more fair? I feel you, but it’s not happening.

Instead, negotiate hard, use your privilege, and then go and share numbers with your underrepresented and underpaid colleagues. […]